Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:48, 7 November 2008

Reliable sources

Hi. I'm sorry, but a book by Peter Duesberg is not a reliable source for someone's cause of death. I know you regard this as "my opinion" (which it is), but it's backed by Misplaced Pages's policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing. Reliable sources have mainstream credibility, editorial oversight, and a process of fact-checking. If the New York Times indicates that Paul Gann died of complications of AIDS, that's a reliable source. If Peter Duesberg, whose fringe ideas on HIV/AIDS are universally rejected by the scientific community, writes in a book published by a fringe conspiracist publishing house that Gann died of something else, then I'm sorry, but that is not a reliable source and certainly not suitable to "contradict" the generally accepted story as published in the New York Times. If you disagree, feel free to solicit outside opinions or bring it up on the reliable sources noticeboard. MastCell 19:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that MastCell has read the book that he refutes above (Inventing the AIDS Virus, by Peter Duesberg). I have. It's well reasoned, very heavily referenced, and professionally published. I recommend it to all, and so does Kary Mullis in his introduction to the book. Duesberg, who is a tenured professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley, remains highly respected by his scientific colleagues in spite of his maverick view on HIV/AIDS. In May 2007, Scientific American published his article about cancer. Eye.earth (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

While the historical significance of Duesberg's early work is undeniable, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that his subsequent career as an AIDS denialist is a case study in wrongheadedness. Likewise, Kary Mullis deserves all of the accolades he's received for the development of PCR, but that doesn't mean that every idea he's endorsed is worthwhile or plausible (cf. glowing raccoons and close encounters of the third kind). MastCell 05:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

With regard to your comments on Talk:Zidovudine: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. MastCell 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

MastCell's presumption is itself a personal attack. Eye.earth (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. MastCell 05:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Paul Gann. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. () MastCell  18:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you think, readers? And please sign your posts. Eye.earth (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Paul Gann. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. MastCell  18:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you simply leave my edits alone and let other editors decide the issue? I'd have no problem with that. Regardless, I'll take full advantage of the rule as I see fit. Eye.earth (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. OrangeMarlin 18:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a rather serious accusation, OrangeMarlin. I challenge you to explain yourself. Eye.earth (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

List of centenarians

Please stop removing information from the lead to List of centenarians. The way that this list has been shaped is complex and potentially controversial, and we need far MORE information in the lead than we currently have, not less. If you want to change the consensus or argue against it, please do it on the talk page and explain why you think that #5 on our to-do list is a bad idea. Please also see Misplaced Pages:Lists#Lead sections in stand-alone lists; our selection criteria for this page is not self-explanatory. Cheers, CP 05:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, please respect the consensus on this page and STOP removing content from the page. If you want to discuss or change the material in the introduction, please make your suggestions on the talk page. Your last edit deleted content and references without any explanation whatsoever. If you continue engaging in disruptive editing and content removal on this page, you will be blocked from editing. Cheers, CP 01:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please heed this message, as it will be the LAST warning that I give you on this issue. Your edits to List of centenarians are disruptive and against consensus; you have been asked multiple times to discuss these changes on the talk page of the article, but you have refused to do so or even explain your edits, which are not in line with current Misplaced Pages policy. For example, your last reduction of the lead you claimed "Essentials only in topic sentence", which is directly the opposite of the policy, which states "Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do. Even when the meaning of a list's title seems obvious, a lead section should be provided which briefly and clearly describes what the list is about. In other words, it should present the inclusion criteria items must meet in order to qualify to be added to the list." By this standard, as has been discussed on the talk page, the lead needs to be expanded, not contracted. Please do not remove material from the lead, or perform any other disruptive edits on this page without discussing them first, or else your behavior will be reported and you will be blocked from editing. Cheers, CP 22:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you seem to have no inclination to try and discuss the issue, I have reported your disruptive behavior at Wikiquette alerts in hopes that someone else may be able to explain it better. Cheers, CP 19:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You have continued to show no willingness to even acknowledge my calls for you to discuss the issue, so I have been left with no choice but to seek help at the administrators' noticeboard. The relevant thread is here. Cheers, CP 15:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Broken records

You've been reinserting the same edit at Paul Gann, pushing Peter Duesberg and AIDS denialism into an unrelated biography, for quite some time now. It's been reverted, repeatedly, by a number of different editors who have explained the inappropriateness of your ongoing efforts. You've been directed toward Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution mechanisms, which you've not bothered to employ. I see from your talk page that you've been running into similar problems elsewhere. Please reconsider your approach. MastCell  05:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. Your edits on a variety of articles that run contrary to WP:CONSENSUS are disruptive, and appear to be ownership of articles. Major changes must always be discussed on the Article Talk page before implementation, and achieve Consensus. -t BMW c- 21:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread about you

Hi. You're being talked about at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_behavior_by_User:Eye.earth. You might want to think about dealing with this. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)