Lassesen

Creating Neutral Point of View on the CFS Page

Thank your for comments on my talk page. I would like to suggest the we structure of discussion about this issues with the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Page and offer my talk page for that process.

Amongst other issues this would allow me to test that my own objections to this page are reasonable and objective before further attempting to tackle them. I would prefer to tackle this issues on which there is widest consensus of a need for change - I would also like to maximiser chances of consensus being formed by reasoned but balanced argument with tag team operating on that page.

Is there any way to send email to WP editor?

I think there are several distinct issues with this page:

1. This page is almost useless to the general public. The disease is very badly described, being no more than a list of symptoms in contrast to the political content. That list of symptoms is too long and not grouped in a way that facilitates human memory. There is no real description. PEM for example is neither given its usual name, nor described. The 'symptom clusters' are not talked about at all - this makes it confusing.
2. a distinct lack of Neutrality regards disease description and treatments and a distinct impression of a psychological consensus that is unreal
3. the next being that it portrays conflict as being between patients and doctors where it is actually one of viewpoint and overstates the problem by very selectively quoting news sources. The original sources give an indication of scale.

Political Content

1. It fails to indicate that those researchers subjected to unpleasant mail were (with one exception) themselves the individuals responsible for handing out research funding and thus self awarding in a biased fashion (this bias itself is discussed elsewhere in the article)
2. It also fails to indicate that those same individuals ran NICE as well or that they had appointed like minded psychiatrists on both panels.
3. It fails to report the publication bias in both the lancet and the BMJ addressed by Ellen Goudsmit herself a trained psychiatrist.
4. If further fails to report the slander of physiological researchers as 'Activists' in the letters pages of the Lancet and BMJ.

This political content should either be absent thus giving the page a better focus, or be balanced. --Leopardtail (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox Comments

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome

After having articles cited by the CDC from the Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome deleted without discussion because they are "unreliable", I propose that this article be elimnated entirely. If the CDC is "unreliable", then there is not much use dealing with the demi-gods of medical expertise that are vandelizing that entry with an odd POV. Lassesen (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on user

Hi Lassesen, some editors at Chronic fatigue syndrome have talked about banning me. That is a later step in a dispute process, but it can start with a request for comment about me and i think comments from outside are good. Here is the guidelines for an RfC when you are interested at that [1]. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 13:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally I do like to ban anyone, as you may know I have been for almost 9 years, the moderator of the largest internet user group on the internet (2800+ members) that is focused on EXPERIMENTAL[[2]] treatment of CFS and FM. I am well respected in the community for being a good moderator of a most difficult and very prone to flames.

(Delete biographical private medical information about another person, WP:BLP RetroS1mone talk 00:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

My practise is always to put people on moderation until they calm down and conform to the rule. It literally costs me thousands per month in time that I am unable to bill clients for. My involvement with the CFS entry is also expensive --- but the content lacks a balanced POV.

If I was in that scenario for this entry, I would love to see you contribute. My desire is that the entry be done by those that can seen the variety of POV in the literature; accept that there is polarization and not make judgement calls about it. I do not bash SW, he does good work -- but being trained to do redaction analysis by a dean of a history department at the University of Chicago (did 4 years of courses with him), I also see a lot of 'motivation; to write it in a certain manner.

Look, become more familar with the vast array of literature on CFIDS and show it by your comments... illustrate that you can learn.

Lassesen (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - your overall tone of posts at Talk:CFS is highly demeening of other editors and to make repeated demands of other editors (to respond in a given time, or answer your questions - see WP:SILENCE) is being counter productive in acheiving the changes you seek. It is not WP's role to discuss what may be wrong with sources, but only to reflect upon the real-world views. In this WP:NPOV goes into detail about not needing to give equal WP:weight to minority views - one might disagree with the majority conventional stance (and there are certainly more than enough reasonable concerns raised in the ME/CFS field) but the majority viewpoint it nevertheless remains and thus so shall wikipedia reflect. WP:MEDRS sets out aspects of what takes pecking order of useful sources and a secondary source in one of the major peer reviewed independant journals comes top - as for value of other sources, options are to ask at Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome, WT:MED or WP:RS/N; but if others disagree then you do not have consensus for the change and further debating at length will be pointless. David Ruben ^Talk 05:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Byron Marshall Hyde

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Byron Marshall Hyde, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.nightingale.ca/index.php?target=aboutdrhyde. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Byron Marshall Hyde

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Byron Marshall Hyde, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Fails WP:BIO (notability, specifically)

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Verbal chat 18:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you add some references that assert notability please, thanks. Verbal chat 20:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Would a collection of his articles do? The question of 'notability' is a hard question, within the CFS research community he is well known and respected especially with his early brain scan work --he has been asked to author articles in some of the textbooks. Is that sufficient? Lassesen (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I sent to AfD. This article got deleted before, he is not notable for WP, pls look up requirements for biography. RetroS1mone talk 00:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

wp:blp

Lassesen pls read wp:blp, personal private information especially private medical information should not get put on here, like you did about your daughter. That is specially important because you are using your own name. Thx RetroS1mone talk 00:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, having read the WP:BLP, it's a little unclear on something of this nature. First off, he was speaking of his reasons for doing what he does, which is allowable. If his daughter is a minor, or has consented to having her information published, I'm not sure if consitutes a violation of WP:BLP, as he would be entitled to speak on her behalf. Moreover, if he's mentioned it before in public forums, it would be public information. Finally, and I think most importantly, there is no personally identifiable information being published here. I have no idea who Lassesen is, and neither do you (or presumably anybody else). He's a guy who has a daughter with CFS...that narrows it down to...what?...maybe a few million people worldwide? How do you know his real name is Lassesen? And wouldn't publishing that information also be against WP:BLP? I'll admit, I can see the argument against publishing the info about his daughter...but changing someone else's user talk (as opposed to adding your own) in non-trivial ways without warning is considered really bad form! --Rob (talk) 09:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Chronic fatigue syndrome has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Did I delete an entire section somewhere?

If I did I certainly didn't mean to - please send me the diff link and I'll fix it. Thanks. --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I responded on the CFS talk page. It looks like you confused me with someone else. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of David Sheffield Bell

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article David Sheffield Bell, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

notability not establish, no sources

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. (I didn't PROD it myself, came across it while stub-sorting, but I see the PRODder didn't bother to inform you) PamD (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry yes I added prod to this article and I will nominate for Afd now. Pls read wp:note before you add more new biographies and also find what sources are reliable on Wikipedia. New users can get help to edit your new articles some and ask for comments before the go up when you test with a user subpage [3]. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 12:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversial edits to CFS

As you know, the CFS page is controversial. In order to stop edit warring from starting please discuss large edits on the talk page first to gain consensus for them before making them. It helps to keep the situation calm and stops the WP:BRD from having too much of the R phase. Thanks Verbal chat 16:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please revert your last two edits to CFS which remove references and take your issues to the talk page. Verbal chat 16:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You might benefit from a read of WP:OWN. Verbal chat 16:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I had placed a warning message here. That was probably not needed. I appologize for that. I replaced it with a detailed note set below.sinneed (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted these latest edits. There are several important notes:

• Wikipedia does not care that the source is right, wrong, or indifferent. Wikipedia cares that the source is a wp:RS. If the NYT quoted me about CFS (I am no expert), that could be put into the article... and a critic could point out that while the NYT interviewed me, it was a "man in the street" interview, not one with an expert. Consensus probably would go against including my interview, except as, possibly a section on "common misconceptions and ignorance about CFS".
• Hacking out large chunks of content without talking about it is rude, unless the content is problematic, and it is best to cite the wp:whatever that indicates it should be removed.
• If other editors are objecting to the edits, they should generally stop, lest an edit war result.

I won't revert the content again, but I most respectfully request you discuss before reapplying these deletions.sinneed (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sinneed, but the relevant RS guideline is WP:MEDRS as this is a medical article. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly defer to your greater knowledge on that.sinneed (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A further note: you said "was the poster a Christian Scientist?". Please don't do anything like this again. Focus on the content, not the editors. While some might take it as compliment, others might be quite offended, and it adds nothing to Wikipedia, and could be a wp:personal attack. sinneed (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree very strongly with many of the comments made re this page. Several of the editors on this page have formed a 'locked consensus' that has a far from Neutral Point of View. They systematically revert the content of Authors who do not support their clearly Psychiatric view of the disease. There is also removal of content by these editors without discussion. The page has issues with severely overweighting awful behaviour by a handful of patients and reporting material from articles in an non-objective fashion, it moves content that disputes the single POV into forks, and adds insignificant weight to material that does not support that single POV. I further agree the science-watcher and to a lesser degree JFW are stifling collaborative editing making collaborative improvement of NPOV impossible. Direct statements have been made in talk regarding attitude to patients that make it clear there is not intention to provide NPOV.--Leopardtail (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I would be prepared to support a RFC complaint against sciencewatcher--Leopardtail (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC). I will support that. He has his own agenda... Lassesen (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Byron Marshall Hyde on Obscuropedia

Hi Lassesen, I noticed your article on Byron Marshall Hyde was deleted. I'm experimenting with a new wiki called Obscuropedia for non-notable topics and just wanted to let you know your article was copied there at [4]. Feel free to edit it or let me know if you have any comments. Dcoetzee 23:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paul Cheney

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Paul Cheney, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

notability

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RetroS1mone talk 14:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of David Sheffield Bell

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is David Sheffield Bell. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Sheffield Bell. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

SPECT scans

Regarding the spect scans: I think you are mistaken in assuming that an abnormal spect scan means a neurological rather than psychological cause. First, depression also results in abnormal spect scans. Second, psychology affects neurology, physiology and physical health. Anyway, just throwing that out there. Not implying that CFS is psychological, neurological or anything else, but just wanted to point out a flaw in your logic which might have prompted you to make your edits (and this logic flaw seems to be present in many other CFS patients too :) --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This comment maligns a whole group of patients and is profoundly inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs) 20:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope, it is you who is doing the maligning. I just pointed out that abnormal SPECT scans could have a psychological cause. You, in turn, say that that is "maligning". Are you saying that illnesses such as depression are "malign"? That's certainly interesting, and what I had suspected. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

There have been a host of very recent papers where they have been successful in transferring nervousness and depression between mice by fecal transplant which strongly imply that depression has a physicological root in the microbiome. Just like Ulcers have a root in the microbiome (that took 40 years for most MDs to accept). I suggest you make a habit of reading Science and New Scientist cover to cover with each new issue.

Lassesen (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Your recent editing history at Chronic fatigue syndrome shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. sciencewatcher (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)