User talk:Infinitesimus
TB
Hey Infinitesimus I moved what you added to the subpage on management as the small numbers and the fact that it is primary research rather than a review does not make it of great enough significance to be on the main page. You can find it here Tuberculosis_treatment#Current_research Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
How to cite scientific work on Wikipedia
Hi there, and welcome. Thanks for your contributions. Could I request a couple of minutes of your time to guide you through some pretty important stuff, because I think it will be very helpful for your upcoming contributions.
Firstly, please make sure to cite scientific work in a fashion that makes it easy to grasp for the reader. That means that "bare URLs" are pretty much out, and that citations should be formatted with citation templates. There are various ways to automatically generate citation templates, e.g. MakeRef and Diberri's template filler.
Secondly, I cannot emphasise enough how careful one must be in selecting sources. An "old-fashioned" encyclopedia would be expected to base its entries on high-quality sources, such as highly regarded specialist textbooks, academic reviews and such. For medical and bioscientific articles, we have WP:MEDRS. This guideline gives some useful pointers with regards to desirable properties of sources. This is especially imporant in areas that are developing rapidly, and where there is "emerging evidence". Sometimes it might actually be appropriate to leave out certain evidence because it has matured insufficiently for encyclopedia coverage.
I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if you need any further advice. JFW | T@lk 11:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Welcome
Infinitesimus, thank you for your recent contributions to several science-related articles. I encourage you to take some time to learn about sourcing requirements on Wikipedia. As JFW notes above, WP:MEDRS encourages reliance on peer-reviewed scientific secondary sources when adding information to articles such as AIDS. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added such as to the page AIDS do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on AIDS. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I apologise for the template messages, but spamming Wikipedia articles with information on little-known therapeutics is unacceptable. Reverting other editors to re-insert such spam multiple times is just as unacceptable, and further reverts will likely result in a block. I appreciate your desire to add reliable sources and information about TB; please, by all means continue to do so, but leave out the product promotion. Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep calm, all of the references are peer-reviewed publications or published papers, freely available. An accusation of "spam" should be directed to the 10 journals or so that have published papers by these authors, and to the clinicians themselves. Keep the insults off Wikipedia please. Thanks you, Infinitesimus.
- Please see spam and weight, and review carefully our policy on reliable sources for medical articles. I do not mean to insult you or any authors of the papers you cite; I simply question the relevance of material you have inserted to our main article on AIDS (as other editors have questioned relevance on other articles you have recently edited). Note that AIDS does not mention by name the major drugs approved around the world as antiretrovirals, even though these drugs are taken daily by hundreds of thousands and have been the subject of hundreds of review articles in the scientific literature; why, then, should the article specifically treat a drug in Phase II trials? When such information is inserted into multiple articles at once, the inevitable conclusion is that an individual editor has chosen to use Wikipedia as a platform for advertising, whether on personal initiative or at the request of a company. This is called spam, and is unacceptable.
- I have commented on your recent edits at Talk:AIDS and invite you to respond there, rather than on my talk page.
- Finally, I warn you kindly but firmly that further reversion to re-insert ImmunoXel will be referred to the Administrators' noticeboard for Edit warring and may result in a block. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Infinitesimus, I've removed some more V1-focused content from HIV vaccine, which cited only work authored by company employees. For such non-randomized, phase II trials, some external non-conflicted source will need to be provided that establishes the WP:Notability of the findings. I have tried to explain my removals on Talk:HIV vaccine, so it's probably best to discuss there. I just wanted to make sure you were aware. -- Scray (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Notification of AN3
Infinitesimus, as I appreciate your value to the project and hope that you will continue to contribute your knowledge of HIV and TB, I don't like to do this, but it's important to understand that there are some ground rules, and we must all respect them. Reverting an article as you have done in the past 24 hours is unacceptable, and I have reported your behaviour to the noticeboard as I warned several times. Please realise that the talk page of an article is always open to you if you wish to gain consensus for additions; edit warring is not a viable option. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. NJA (t/c) 07:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Admin note: Also whilst blocked, please review your possibly disruptive use of undo at other articles, e.g. HIV vaccine, Dapsone, and Tuberculosis. Please read up on proper use of revert and our edit warring policies to prevent further and longer blocks in future. Thanks, NJA (t/c) 07:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Ongoing edit-warring
Since you're just coming off a block for disruptive editing at AIDS, could I ask you not to edit-war and repeatedly insert material to which everyone else objects on the talk page? You're already at three reverts for the day (see WP:3RR), and numerous editors have issues with the changes you keep trying to force in. Maybe we'll get somewhere by discussing it further on the talk page, but continued edit-warring isn't going to enshrine the content you want, and it's likely to engender another block if it continues. MastCell Talk 18:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
1RR restriction
As an alternative to simply re-blocking you for resuming your edit warring diff, diff, diff I'm placing you on a 1RR restriction. Further blocks for violating this restriction will be lengthy. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- This restriction is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#1RR_restriction_of_User:Infinitesimus. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The restriction has been confirmed, see here. Do not exceed one revert per day. This restriction applies for three months. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
December 2009
WIKIPEDIA IS DECLINING WITH EDITORS WHO DELETE AND DO NOT EDIT OR CONTRIBUTE
Infinitesimus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Anyone would take exception to two editors, Scray and Keep deleting and screwing up, repetitively deleting one's writing in wikipedia, all of which is fully referenced and is highly noteworthy. In the dapsone article, there is a complete lack of appropriate mention of anti-inflammatory mechanism of action, which is well published. This author started the process by giving MPO myelperoxidase, only to have it deleted. In the AIDS article, this author wasted several iterations in the Pulmonary section just to get the locals to allow the facts to be properly represented, as per the latest 2009 World Health Organization report, regarding the large percentage of AIDS mortality associated with tuberculosis. The discussion of V-1 had no science or medicine involved, it was simple rejection of the published facts about V-1 Immunitor, a well-known vaccine for HIV that patients in many countries are currently using. Abuse of authors will give Wikipedia a bad name. If something is contraversial, then it can be moved to a section labelled such. Very unfortunate if scientists and doctors lose interest in adding information to wikipedia as they read the papers, due to deletion by Scray and Keep people away from wikipedia who clearly do not read the papers, and perhaps don't even have access to them. AS A RULE: Warn the ones who delete, not the ones who add. As a financial contributor, I want wikipedia to grow with new, referenced information.
Decline reason:
Could you tone down the accusations and ranting? As a rule, admins will not accept a request attacking or accusing other parties, nor will they accept requests that are just long screeds. -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 00:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Wow, lots of people say "wikipedia is ... not a place to publish original research (WP:OR)"JoeSmack Talk:hiv vaccine. Shall we then start working on wikipedia to delete writeups on trials such as the AIDSVAX trial and the ALVAC/AIDSVAX trial since neither was sourced from secondary sources. References given for the latter trial are the primary reference [1] and a clearly unacceptable news item for the second reference.[2] Where is wikipedia going? downhill. --Infinitesimus (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Infinitesimus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Wikipedia really needs to take the side of the writer, not the deleter, in disputes. If contributions are contentious, they should be moved to a "Controversial" section, or a pending section, and they should be shortened or edited to contain an opposing argument, rather than being simply deleted. This is a problem of wikipedia being overrun by lowest common denominator editors who collaborate.
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This individual is bitter and contentious and seems to paint wikipedia with a more and more negative brush on each consecutive block request. I believe that this user needs to be blocked from editing his talk page. Deadkord (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- You're not really helping by playing armchair headshrinker, Deadkord. -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 00:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry friend, but I believe having multiple points of view is helpful in determining if an individual should be blocked or unblocked. Deadkord (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- The lowest common denominator makes comments but doesn't read science so cannot contribute. Administrators: encourage science writers and discourage the masses who don't even take the trouble to get a scientific or medical paper and read it before promoting or dismissing it. Wikipedia is suffering from lack of effort by editors. Scray just deleted more work from immunomodulator - clearly missing the 76% change (p=0.02) change in TNF-alpha and the time-dependent progression of the effect over 3 and 6 months of treatment (figure 1). Also, [scray] didn't seem to understand TB and the immune system as he posits that it is "not possible to say whether any difference observed was due to an effect on the TB organism or on the human". This is an understandable confusion from someone who probably read the abstract quickly.
- Sorry friend, but I believe having multiple points of view is helpful in determining if an individual should be blocked or unblocked. Deadkord (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Now lets look at scray's comment: "the change in cytokine levels in peripheral blood is not shown to be of any biological significance". That's a novel idea, not supported by 753 articles on PubMed from the specific string search ("serum cytokine levels"OR "plasma cytokine levels"). The repeated concern about a company person being an author is ridiculous, as ALMOST ALL clinical trials that are funded, with few exceptions, are published with at least one author from the company. Do we remove all references that have one company author from Wikipedia? I hope not.--Infinitesimus (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- You'll save yourself a lot of trouble in the future if you reference authoritative reviews of particular areas, rather than individual studies and conference abstracts. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment Tim Vickers but where do you see in HIV_vaccine#Clinical_trials_to_date any proper references of any kind? Delete the whole section? No. The default should be to add information and edit unsupported information by adding {fact} and waiting for someone to support with a citation. Not wanton deletion. Primary sources are the rule for most recent clinical studies. --Infinitesimus (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- I gave multiple reasons for the deletion on Talk:Immunomodulator, and I did read the text of the article you cited. It's true that one or two of my concerns apply to some references already in use in WP articles, but (i) it's unusual and unacceptable for so many to apply to one source, and (ii) in any case, it's inaccurate to claim that Two wrongs make a right. As I said, taken together the edit was not supported by the reference, and it reflected undue weight. Just as important is WP:Consensus, in which you've shown little interest. Consensus can be developed through civil discussion. It's clear to me that you're intelligent and have a lot you could contribute, but WP:Tendentious editing won't advance wikipedia. -- Scray (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Infinitesimus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
see above reasons
Decline reason:
None of the above reasons are satisfactory. Let me make this clear. It is not the position you are advancing which is why you are blocked. It is the way you are behaving. Your behavior is clearly tendentious here, and you need to change the way that you interact with people if you wish to edit. Your opinions and the information you are espousing here are irrelevent. Jayron32 04:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Yes, we'd welcome an expert in HIV immunology who wanted to accurately summarise the field of HIV vaccines, this isn't partcularly well developed yet in Wikipedia. However, we do not want somebody who to us appears to want to promote a few selected products to the exclusion of others. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, Tim Vickers, please start by making it clear that "deleters" like user:scray and keepwastingourtime must first win the arguments in the talk page before deleting other editors' work, unless of course the latter is clearly unreferenced or objectionable. This editor's first project was going to be novel vaccines, with V-1 Immunitor being the first of many, but I cannot write about ANY vaccines if scrap has his way demanding -- only in this case for some reason -- that any clinical trial must have secondary references and must not have even a single author with financial interest in the product. As I told scrap many times, seldom are products developed and papers written by uninvolved people, and seldom are there any secondary papers written about them. Take for example the recent HIV vaccine trial in Thailand that takes up most of the HIV vaccines article -- by scrap standards, wikipedia would not even have a reference to the trial having taken place.
- There are many many trials such as V-1 that are not funded by large drug companies or by big established US institutions. Does that make them unworthy of wikipedia? not even a mention, even when the number of patients treated is going to exceed 100,000 in the next few years?
- Suggestion: change the parameters for wanton deletion. It should be nearly impossible to delete what someone has written -- editing and where applicable adding some provisos. Deletion of properly referenced writing is best to be treated as simple vandalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinitesimus (talk • contribs)
- ((edit conflict) with below) So let me get this straight. You wish to be allowed to edit, and yet in the same breath you resort to calling another editor a rude name? Right. Thanks for making these decisions so easy for us. --Jayron32 00:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- The process of contributing to Wikipedia is called "editing". Editing involves both the addition and the deletion of material. Both halves of the editing process are important, and it's short-sighted (at best) to enshrine one and denigrate the other. "Proper" referencing has never been the only criterion for inclusion; it's a classic mistake (but still a mistake) to interpret verifiability in a vacuum. Content needs to be verifiable and appropriately sources as a starting point, but the final product also needs to conform to WP:NPOV (including the proviso on undue weight) and WP:NOR.
As a side note, this is a collaborative project. When you contribute here, you accept that others might alter or even delete your edits. People who throw hissy fits when their edits are removed, trimmed, cut down, or otherwise altered are generally not great fits for this particular project, because they spend their entire tenure in a state of constant agitation and wounded pride. As a gesture toward the collaborative aspect of the site, perhaps you could refrain from using snarky nicknames for editors with whom you disagree? MastCell Talk 00:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Infinitesimus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
there has been no justification for preventing the posting of scientifically, socially, and medically important, and well referenced material a few editors who delete in entirety without considering editing. No-one has answered why different standards are applied by top editor Scray to (in this case) V-1 than to references to AIDSVAX (see above comments, for example). Editors should not become revered simply by virtue of having a long history (usually of mediocrity) with Wikipedia. Regarding nicknames - why not ridicule silly nicknames, that is not allowed? Shame.
Decline reason:
Per above and below comments and the fact that's it blatantly obvious you don't play well with others. To wit, actually, seriously, asking "why not ridicule silly nicknames". Please go find another website. So we don't have to waste our time with your temper tantruims, I'm protecting this page for the remainder of the block. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- I am going to say this again, though you will ignore it. The above unblock request shows no understanding of why you are blocked. You seem to be under the impression that you are blocked because of the content you wish to add to Wikipedia. This is not true. You are blocked because your behavior has been disruptive, and runs counter to Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines. Asking for an unblock request with a debate over content shows that you are entirely missing the point here. --Jayron32 03:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Many policies are developed by precedent. For wikipedia, the deletion precedent set by S___y and K___________________________n (I daren't address them by nickname since it may be considered making fun of them) is a nasty one that detracts from the wiki effort. Their ability to repeatedly delete in whole the information that this editor added, and was prepared to add more as well on the same subjects, and then to convince some admistrator to prevent the material being reinstated to be further edited and supplemented ... is well, a bad precedent. Unfortunate policy that will certainly prevent qualified editors from making much effort. Maybe you are settling for the LCD in this wiki, and I am not talking displays? --Infinitesimus (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
WIKI
... in wikipedia can easily stop meaning what I know is..., and instead become who is king [1]idiot?
Two suggestions
- Try using this tool when you insert references. If you feed it a PubMed ID number, it will spit out a fully formatted Wikipedia citation, which you can cut and paste into the Wikipedia article between the <ref> tags. It's really handy to quickly generate useful citations.
- Consider whether you might tone it down until you get the feel of this place.
Take 'em or leave 'em. MastCell Talk 05:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Violating revert restriction
You have made more than one revert in a 24h period diff and diff, so as per your 1RR editing restriction I am re-blocking you for one week. You may appeal this block in the usual way. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Infinitesimus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have no idea why administrators would want to throttle this editor repeatedly - the reason of "making more than one revert in 24h is erroneous - they were edits, not reverts, and there were no complaints from anyone that I am aware of.
Decline reason:
The reasons are clearly and repeatedly stated in the multiple unblock declines above. No further unblock reason given here.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Maybe I stepped on someone's toes? Whose toes?--Infinitesimus (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Refer to my post re WIKI.--Infinitesimus (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Here in the U.S. if we had deleters and administrators such as exist in this unkempt animal called wikipedia actually in positions of power, we would have:
- 1. poor quality education -- being taught that a newpaper article is more important than a scientific paper (as per my revert in the AIDS article)
- 2. zero chance of escaping unscathed after writing a cutting editorial or drawing a nasty caricature
- 3. worse politicians than we have ever experienced, etc etc.
Alas, this science geek has little interest in fighting this establishment. WIKI's new meaning takes over again. --Infinitesimus (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Infinitesimus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
no reason given. If this was an error, please re-submit.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Unhelpful conduct while blocked; page protected. Sandstein 23:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- ^ Rerks-Ngarm S, Pitisuttithum P, Nitayaphan S, et al. (November 2009). "Vaccination with ALVAC and AIDSVAX to Prevent HIV-1 Infection in Thailand". N. Engl. J. Med.. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0908492. PMID 19843557
- ^ BBC News (BBC) (September 2009). "HIV vaccine 'reduces infection'" (STM). BBC News. Retrieved 2009-09-24