User talk:Kusername

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Kusername, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Tim Vickers (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Penicillin, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

  • Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
  • Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
  • The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Penicillin was changed by Kusername (u) (t) deleting 10061 characters on 2010-05-24T01:11:53+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you received this fatuous warning, Kusername, and I've made a report to the bot's owner on your behalf. Obviously you're allowed to revert your own edit.
But may I ask why you did so? At a glance it appeared to be an exceptionally good edit. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Adrian J. Hunter. I don't know if this message will get to you. This is my first time replying to a message here and the interface is unclear as to whether this is actually bound for you or is just to get posted somewhere.

Thank you for having cared enough to review my edit, and for being thoughtful enough to welcome my contribution. I reverted the edit because I had meant to press the button beside the Save button, merely the Preview button (or whichever it's called). It was a draft. Thank you for letting me know that you feel it was a good edit, for I did have some concern that it might be emotionally perceived by some as too drastic an edit.

Anyhow, I had more references to add. I seek to reference in mainstream and generally respected sources every single scientific, medical, historical, or social statement I add. And I must vet some details further, and make some statements more precise. And I want to integrate better summary of varying and evolving developments and perspectives. I think the penicillin page ought to be very readable yet definitive as can be. So the edit must be extremely dense yet swift reading. There is format, syntax, and wording to further amend, like the precision of group and class to categorize the drugs. I find that Wikipedia.org is often the best overall easily accessible source of information, and the penicillin page ought to reflect that. I'm encouraged to see that you value the quality of public information much as I do.


Kusername (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your message was only posted here, but I saw it because I have your talk page on my watchlist. Generally someone who messages you will watch your talk page unless they say otherwise (at least for a little while), though if you want to guarantee they get your response you can post at their talk page, which is generally linked from their signature (eg from the word "talk" in my or Tim's signature). I understand the interface can be confusing when you're new; if you've a question about using Wikipedia, you can usually get a prompt response from the helpdesk.
I doubt anyone would have objected to such a well-referenced edit as yours at Penicillin, but if they had, they would have been free to make any changes they saw fit. Perfection is not required, and you're welcome to save an edit and make subsequent tweaks as time permits. Alternatively, you may wish to use your personal sandbox, a page you can create by clicking this link: User:Kusername/Sandbox. Here you can copy parts of articles, save in-progress additions, experiment, and so on without interference from other contributors – generally no-one will edit your sandbox unless you invite them to. You can then copy your sandbox's contents to an article whenever you feel ready.
And kudos for the care with referencing – if all contributors were so careful, Wikipedia would be even more useful than it is today. You might find some of the referencing tools listed at Wikipedia:Citation tools useful, particularly the Universal Reference Generator, which can complete a full citation given only a DOI or ISBN.
Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Frederick Griffith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
was linked to Lifespan, Ministry of Health, Contagion, Herero

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 could also click on the signature button or 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) 20:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Scientific realism‎‎. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.—Machine Elf 1735 23:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Scientific realism‎‎. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.—Machine Elf 1735 00:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Scientific realism. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Machine Elf 1735 07:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Scientific realism, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. This could as easily have been the fifth or the sixth.—Machine Elf 1735 20:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Immune system

I guess in some sense, we should appreciate what you're doing with this article, but you're making it into a giant mess. Have you ever read WP:MEDMOS or even WP:MOS? The lead doesn't make sense. The history section is is broken up with once sentence subsections. But the reason I'm here is that 2/3 of your edits lack an edit summary. I'm either going to mass revert everything you've done or try to figure out if I like some of your stuff. Try some collaboration please. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for responding. Yet this is not a medical article—it's a biology article. I think the lead makes very clear sense—though I deleted the severely biased and misleading allopathic medical philosophy.
I ask you to qualify and clarify assertions like "The lead doesn't make sense" and accusations like "you're making a giant mess". You say, "I'm either going to mass revert everything you've done or try to figure out if I like some of your stuff". Wikipedia, however, is not a matter of taste. If you can offer some substantive criticisms—not merely accusations and personal taste—I'll be glad to discuss them on the article's discussion page.
I deferred to your wish to have Pasteur associated with establishing germ theory in the history section, though historians of science recognize that as severely false, as germ theory had little to do with Pasteur who instead created faith in vaccinology. The concept that microorganisms were involved in disease did not contradict miasmatic theory, which did not posit that microorganisms could not be involved in disease. Miasma theory was more intricate, and had some relevant aspects, since sewer gases and such were true public health problems.
Germ theory's fame is mainly attributed to Robert Koch, who never set forth "Koch's postulates", which actually began with his teacher Jakob Henle. Koch's postulates have all long been shown scarcely useful and often misleading. Germ theory predicted that the microorganism was the necessary and sufficient—in other words required and complete—entire cause of the disease. Koch himself acknowledged that germ theory failed. Pasteur simply said little on it, except to offer microbian theory that affixed attention on the bacterial cells, rather than on entities associated with them. Yet that had little to do with creating the notion that microorganisms were a component of disease—or, in the manner of germ theory, that they were the only factor in disease.
I did not realize that simply adding mainstream understanding and the vast gaps of omission about the immune system, and adding clear organization by sections so that novices could get easy visual intake, could result in dislike or the indication that it is a "mess". I thank you for welcoming me to collaboration. If you have complaints about the revisions, please address it on the article's discussion page, as my edits are simply mainstream biology—bringing the article out of medical mythology, severely warlike bias, and omission of most of the immune system and its actions. As to the history section, I thought it would be selfevident that the elements in bold denoted subsections—offering novices easy intake and mental organization of material. I'll be glad to cite any indications made here, if asked.
Anyhow, if 2/3 of my edits lack a summary and that is troublesome, I will pay more careful attention to include edit summaries. If you and others are especially confused—although I've posted citations and shall post more—I'll see if I can recruit an immunologist or professor to critique my edits and offer input. Kusername (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Text reflow around a table

You asked me "do you know how to move the table, now aligned right within the section "Layered defense", so that the text in the section's subsections can be positioned to the left of the table, not only either above or below the table?

Sorry, I do not know how to do that. Greensburger (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion involving you

Hi there. You may wish to take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Request for eyes on Antoine Bechamp, where some of your recent edits are being discussed. NW (Talk) 21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Kusername, please stop adding material to articles, as you did to L-form bacteria, which is not supported by the sources and appears to be based on your personal point of view. This has gone on long enough. My patience with your maverick behaviour is wearing thin. If you continue with this inappropriate behaviour, I will block you from editing. We don't have time to correct these erroneous edits that your are constantly making to this and many other articles. I suggest you take a break from editing before one is forced upon you. Graham Colm (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I do not know who in the world you think you are. You are the individual who claimed that medical microbiology and basic virology share a unified view of viruses. You had to ask what "basic virology" even is. Your edits are egregiously confused. I still have not got around to correcting the severely biased editing that you did of the "Fred Griffith" article.
What has gone on long enough is your trying to rule upon topics that you clearly are unfamiliar with, as you confused medical microbiology for pure microbiology. If you noticed something that you think is not cited in the source, point it out—not merely declare it. You do not have the power of authority opinion here to rule however you please. You have yet to point out a single error that I have made, and you instead merely make accusations upon accusations. Kusername (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has gone on long enough. You are making erroneous edits all over the place and other editors have had to use their valuable editing time reverting them. I have blocked you from editing for one week. Please use this time to read our policies regarding WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a blog. Graham Colm (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you yourself review WP:NPOV. On the topic, Wikipedia opens, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources", not excluding significant views published by reliable sources merely because they do not suit your personal opinion. NPOV explains, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public". NPOV explains, "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". And it adds, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents".
NPOV explains, "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage".
Today, 26 Dec 2011, you deleted all my edits made today, 26 Dec 2011, to article "L-form bacteria". To justify this you declared, "most of this is nonsense - and not in the 1951! source cited". I restored my edits and commented, "Information cited to 1951 paper is on its first 2 pgs. Please, do not violate NPOV by trying to limit article to your personal sympathies". Perhaps you noticed, then, that the second page of the lengthy 1951 review article, specifically reviewing the previous 15 years of L-form research and authored by the researcher credited with identification and naming of L forms in 1935, cohered with my indications cited to that paper [Klieneberger-Nobel E, "Filterable forms of bacteria", Bacteriol Rev, 1951 Jun;15(2):77–103, p 78]. Again you reverted all my edits, this time switching your claim. You asserted, " L-form cannot tolerate heat etc etc" (whatever in the world etc etc even refers to).
Please, cite your claims in reliable sources. So far you have merely asserted your opinion, posted unsupported allegations to my talk page, and blocked Kusername from ability to edit Wikipedia. In pure microbiology, there is an entire category called nonculturable but viable (NCBV) bacteria [Oliver JD, "Recent findings on the viable but nonculturable state in pathogenic bacteria", FEMS Microbiol Rev, 2010 Jul;34(4):415-25] [Năşcuţiu AM, "Viable non-culturable bacteria", Bacteriol Virusol Parazitol Epidemiol, 2010 Jan-Mar;55(1):11-8]. NCBV bacteria can survive pasteurisation [Gunasekera TS et al, "Inducible gene expression by nonculturable bacteria in milk after pasteurization"—sec "Discussion" (last paragraph), Appl Environ Microbiol, 2002 Apr;68(4):1988-93]. The third edition of a textbook on L forms says that "small spheres of the variants may have exceptional resistance to exposure to 60 degrees C", which is 140 degrees F, clearly heat tolerance [Mattman L, Cell Wall Deficient Forms: Stealth Pathogens, 3rd edn (Boca Raton FL: CRC Press, 2001), ch 4 "Properties and peculiarities", sec "Summary", p 32]. A first principle of microbiology that you seem unable to grasp is that L forms vary tremendously—in ways that even microbiologists studying them for decades do not claim to have figured out—depending on the conditions whereby they arose. But somehow you know the universal deterministic laws of L forms?
I had cited a reliable source examining the question as to whether L forms can survive bioling and autoclaving. The paper's very abstract: Transition of bacteria to cell wall deficient L-forms in response to stress factors has been assumed as a potential mechanism for survival of microbes under unfavorable conditions. In this article, we provide evidence of paradoxal survival through L-form conversion of E. coli high cell density population after lethal treatments (boiling or autoclaving). Light and transmission electron microscopy demonstrated conversion from classical rod to polymorphic L-form shape morphology and atypical growths of E. coli. Microcrystal formations observed at this stage were interpreted as being closely linked to the processes of L-form conversion and probably involved in the general phenomenon of protection against lethal environment. Identity of the morphologically modified L-forms as E. coli was verified by species specific DNA-based test. Our study might contribute to a better understanding of the L-form phenomenon and its importance for bacterial survival, as well as provoke reexamination of the traditional view of killing strategies against bacteria [Markova N et al, "Survival of Escherichia coli under lethal heat stress by L-form conversion", Int J Biol Sci, 2010 Jun 9;6(4):303-15].
Although my 26 Dec 2011 version of the L form article moved one portion of the indication that L forms can survive boiling and autoclaving, that indication was in the article well before your first edit of the article was made just yesterday, 25 Dec 2011. And so the indication is still made clearly in the article, what apparently you did not even quite read. Your deletions today seem directed only at what you noticed I contributed. Yet I am the individual who posted that citation—how L forms can survive boiling and autoclaving—to the article well before yesterday when you added your first citation on L forms to the article by adding a citation that I myself had used in a different article. When I last edited the L form article, though, I did not feel like finding that citation. When I saw it on the L form article today—added by you yesterday—I expanded on it with information in the very abstract of the citation itself. Perhaps that is some of the "etc etc" that you allege to be my fabrication? As you consider yourself vigilantly watching my edits, I suspect that to begin with you got the citation from me—but are still so unfamiliar with the topic as to remain bewildered by, and belligerent at, its very content.
On 10 Dec 2011 when I first edited the "Pleomorphism" article to properly characterise the history of the pleomorphism controversy, I added—among other claims made within the historical controversy itself—that some had once claimed that a bacterium could transform into a virus. You wholly reverted my edit and placed an edit note saying, "bacteria becoming viruses I don't think so". L forms are the very "viruses" that some bacteriologists had claimed that bacteria transformed into. The modern conception of viruses—what grew to prominence after about 1945—was nonexistent at the time [van Helvoort T, "A bacteriological paradigm in influenza research in the first half of the twentieth century", Hist Philos Life Sci, 1993;15(1):3-21]. Do you get it now? Or are you still convinced that all this is part of my alleged "maverick" plot ruin Wikipedia?
Later on 10 Dec 2011 I went to the "Virology" article—before I noticed my edits to the "Pleomorphism" article all reverted—and added the following to its preexisting "History of virology" section: Appearing in 1911 filterable virus referred to any pathogenic infectious entity passing a laboratory filter—Chamberland filter or Berkefeld filter having 0.22 micrometer pore size. Till the mid 1940s, medical virologists operated within the paradigm of bacteriology and presumed they were dealing with entities alike ultrasmall bacteria.[14] It is now understood by basic microbiologists that these filtrates included entities now called viruses as well as bacterial species, like mycoplasmas and rickettsias as well as filterable forms of classical bacteria, namely L forms, particularly spheroplasts and protoplasts.[15][16] [Kusername's 10 Dec 2011 version of "Virology" article, sec "History of Virology"].
Instead of learning from that and resolving your own confusion, you deleted all my edits to the "Virology" article. And, as I noticed only later, you had already gone to article "Fred Griffith" (the first article at Wikipedia that I was a major contributor to), and deleted an entire section ("Context of Griffith's report") and an entire subsection ("Biology" under section "Griffith's further work and legacy"), deleting nearly all trace of conflict in history of microbiology between pleomorphist data versus monomorphist dogma, prevailing in the applied science medical microbiology but nullified decades ago in the basic sience pure microbiology by way of Griffith's 1928 report on transformation of bacterial strains and Klieneberger-Nobel's 1935 identification of L forms, confirming that bacteria indeed transformed into entities at the time called viruses.
Your error is under presentism, imposing your own nearsighted presumptions, based on your own present education—apparently severely limited to current and populist medical microbiology—while skewing both current basic microbiology and the very history of all microbiology. I already cited a source, when I edited the "Virology" article, to address this error—trying to use current medical science to rule biology and history of biology—but you deleted that too and asserted that your own mere opinion is more reliable than the published statement of a philospher of medicine [Zalewski Z, "Importance of philosophy of science to the history of medical thinking", Croat Med J, 1999 Mar;40(1):8-13].
In the late 19th century researchers first becoming familiar with bacteria imposed presumptions gleaned from knowledge of other organisms and presumed that bacteria were fixed and unalterable in form and function, namely phenotype, so that variations in bacteria were presumed to be only insignificant changes in size and shape—like minor varirations of height or length and weight in a species of animal—and this conception of constant phenotype became tied to medical treatments targeting specific bacterial types [Manwaring WH, "Research trend of medical bacteriology", Science, 1932 Jul 15;76(1959):41-6], as with "magic bullets" after Paul Ehrlich by 1910 developed salvarsan, the first widely used chemotherapeutic drug. To close July 1931, Science's supplement, in it "Science News" section, announced that bacteriolgist Arthur Isaac Kendall "has made invisible germs visible and caused visible ones to vanish into filterable viruses" [Thone F, "Filterable and non-filterable bacteria", Science, 1931 Jul 31;74(1909):10-2]. Next month Science covered the topic more in depth ["Mediums for the isolation and cultivation of bacteria in the filterable state", Science, 1931 Aug 21;74(1912):196-7]. In Dec 1931 other researchers published in Science confirmation that filterable forms of bacteria were abundant—often more abundant than classical bacteria—in the environment ["Primitive or filterable forms of bacteria", Science, 1931 Dec 11;74(1928):602-3].
On the "Virology article's discussion page, you hacked a quote of my 10 Dec 2011 edits where it had said that virology mainly covers molecular biology—with its house molecular genetics—and immunology. Yet, when quoting this, you omitted the word immunology and thus the citation supporting the indication that medicine lags far behind it [Smith KA, "Medical immunology: A new journal for a new subspecialty", Med Immunol, 2002 Sep 30;1(1):1, paragraphs 1 & 2].
With immunology out the way, you asserted it false that virology mainly concerns molecular biology. Elsevier explains of its virology journal, "Virology publishes the results of basic research in all branches of virology, including the viruses of vertebrates and invertebrates, plants, bacteria, and yeasts/fungi. The journal features articles on the nature of viruses, on the molecular biology of virus multiplication, on molecular pathogenesis, and on molecular aspects of the control and prevention of viral infections. The approaches and techniques used are expected to encompass those of many disciplines, including molecular genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, biophysics, structural biology, cell biology, immunology, and morphology" ["Virology", Elsevier, 2011]. The webpage of Introduction to Modern Virology, 6th edition, says its foundation is molecular biology ["Introduction to Modern Virology (Sixth Edition)", Blackwell Publishing, 2006]. Under related titles, the first book on the page is another virology textbook whose description says, "Basic Virology is the essential introductory text for the student or for the researcher who needs a solid foundation in virology and its relationship to modern biology. This accessible text focuses on the fundamentals of virology while stressing the basic concepts of molecular biology and immunology" ["Related titles: Introduction to Modern Virology (Sixth Edition)", Blackwell Publishing, 2006].
Instead you sought to preserve the notion that medical microbiology (applied science) and virology (basic science) share unified view of viruses. So which medical microbiology textbooks cover nonpathogenic human viruses, nonhuman animal viruses, plant viruses, bacteria viruses, fungi viruses, and amoebae viruses? Every single chapter in the eminent medical microbiology textbook Sherris Medical Microbiology, 5th edition, is grouped under part II "Pathogenic viruses". In fact, you even asked, "What is 'basic virology'?". Before even aware what basic virology is, however, you declared, "To say 'In basic virology it is commonly held that viruses hijack cells' is totally untrue" ["Virology" discussion page, sec "The views in this article are not mainstream—they are medical"]. Thus you were disputing my edit's indication that the hijack principle is a view common in basic virology.
One virology textbook says, "Viruses are obligate intracellular parasites that 'hijack' cellular machinery for the purpose of their replication" [Voevodin AF & Marx PA, Simian Virology (London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), ch 2 "Principles of virology", subch 2.1 "What is a virus?", p 39]. Page 1 of one treatise opens, "The molecular details of how viruses infect and hijack the cellular processes of their host cells are of critical importance in biology and medicine. It is only through precise understanding of such events that new anti-viral therapies will be developed" [Ranson NA & Stockley PG, ch 1 "Cryo-electron microscopy of viruses", p 1, in Stockley PG and Twarock R, eds, Emerging Topics in Physical Virology (London: Imperial College Press, 2010)]. So it also split biology and medicine into two separate categories. Is hijacking "cellular machinery" and "cellular processes" different from hijacking "the cell"? One emergent view in biology is that, once infected with a virus, the cell is the virus [Forterre P, "Defining life: The virus viewpoint", Orig Life Evol Biosph, 2010 Apr;40(2):151-60].
Others find the entire premise—a virus being an organism—misguided [Moreira D & López-García P, "Ten reasons to exclude viruses from the tree of life", Nat Rev Microbiol, 2009 Apr;7(4):306-11]. I myself regard the hijack paradigm as utter superstition, magical thinking, paranormal chemistry—severely interpretive/metaphysical and hardly formal/empirical—a remnant of medical virology's "bacteriology/parasite" paradigm. My own theory is far different, as I recognize an entirely different entity in mainstream physiology and cell biology that operates viruses. Yet I was not sharing my original research, what holds fundamental physics and theoretical physics—fundamental science underlying molecular biology—as the fundamental science of my own theory of virology. I was reflecting mainstream virology, rather, which holds molecular biology as its fundamental science and still neglects fundamental physics and theoretical physics, and generally subscribes to the hijack principle. Introduction to Modern Virology, 6th edition, says, "Viruses have evolved to 'hijack' such proteins [namely cell receptors] in order to gain entry into that cell" [ch 5 "The process of infection: I, Attachment of viruses and the entry of their genomes into the target cell", subch 5.1 "Infection of animal cells—attachment to the cell", p 62].
You have demonstrated abysmally severe unfamiliarity with the topics in question, have severely violated Wikipedia's NPOV by making massive deletions of cited material, and have now abused Wikipedia privileges in apparent personal vendetta against both me and pure biology conflicting with your personal point of view presuming omniscience and power of mere authority opinion to contradict and delete—or sometimes not even notice—reliable sources in biology, history of science, philosophy of science, history of medicine, sociology of medicine, and philosophy of medicine. As my edits were in keeping with Wikipedia's 5th Pillar (WP:5P), the advice to be bold but not reckless in editing, whereas your edits have been bold and reckless and severely biased to your personal sympathy—medical microbiology—I might seek some assistance to prevent your further abuse of Wikipedia.
Violating WP:NPOV on the "Virology" article, you deleted several citations, as in merely your opinion they were "questionable with regard to reliability"—since Wikipedia editor GrahamColm said so? Your opinion is not a reliable source versus statements by university scholars whose books have been published by university presses and in the journal Isis, published by University of Chicago Press for nearly 100 years. The relevant journals are STM—scientific, technical, and medical—separate spheres of publication, as science and medicine share influences, yet have separate societies and publications, this distinction being the standard categories held by the relevant scholars [Pickstone JV & Worboys M, "Focus: Between and beyond 'histories of science' and 'histories of medicine', Introduction", Isis, 2011 Mar;102(1):91-101].
Wikipedia is neither your blog nor a soapbox for your confusion but supreme confidence that your medical knowledge is the last stop in biology, a different category of existence. Your dilemma is metaphysical—ontological—and sociocultural, presuming that your medical information is authoritative in biology and history of science. You are simply in the wrong categories with your reductionist, simplistic knowledge of medical applied sciences, as if it offers you justified true knowledge of biology.
Your opinion is not more authoritative than the statement of longtime BMJ editor Richard Smith, who explains that medical school does not make a scientist, and that "medical journals often contain poor science. Basic scientists who work in biology and chemistry are regularly scornful of the, mostly, applied science that appears in medical journals" [Smith R, "The trouble with medical journals"—secs "The poor science of medical journals" and "Science for the unscientific", J R Soc Med, 2006 Mar;99(3):115-9]. Professor and author James McCormick explains, "Unfortunately, the medical profession, in fulfillment of its social function, pretends to knowledge when it is imperfect or even non-existent, and is reluctant to confess and to stress the depth of its ignorance" ["Scientific medicine—fact or fiction? The contribution of science to medicine", Occas Pap R Coll Gen Pract, 2001 Jul;(80):3-6].
You are so far off the map of biology, history of science, and even the rudiments of philosophy of science that one cannot even open discussion of microbiology with you. You're crusading with your medical quasireligion before even knowing what basic science, also called pure science, even is. Your methodology and inference is a vague positivism—seeking only confirmation of positive predictions derived from your theory—illogical because any observation can host over one explanation, or, that is, the success of any hypothesis can be explained by over one theory [Hopayian K, "Why medicine still needs a scientific foundation: Restating the hypotheticodeductive model—part two", Br J Gen Pract, 2004 May;54(502):402-3].
Positivism was overturned some 50 years ago. Why not join biologists—who are not even making such absolute and supposedly irrefutable declarations as you are getting from your medical sources—in postpositivism? You're using medical microbiology—pure culture, standard stains, standard light microscopy—to infer abstraction by presuming your observations universally true, and thereupon making analytic generalization by presuming a supposedly explanatory theory to cover the observed phenomena [Jefferson T, "More cases, doctor? Yes please!", Cases J, 2008 Jul 16;1(1):38]. Your reasoning is stuck at the problem of induction—the mother of all problems in philosophy both pure and applied—although David Hume explained nearly 300 years ago that humans observe sequence of events, not cause and effect [Jefferson T 2008].
You have shown, thoroughly, that have yet to barely lift the cover of pure microbiology, but are already trying to connect your presumptions of cause and effect to create deterministic theory of microbiology. You are trying to induce pure microbiology through your unshakeable faith in medical microbiology—applied science—as if you were deducing truths by holding irrefutable laws of nature. And yet when you see reports conflicting with your medical-microbiology conclusions, you simply delete them, a confirmation bias so egregious that even medical literature is trying to resolve such cognitive impediment [Kaptchuk TJ, "Effect of interpretive bias on research evidence", BMJ, 2003 Jun 28;326(7404):1453-5]. Your bias is so severe as to exhibit contagion heuristic, merely seeing that I edited something and presuming it de facto so wrong, wrong, wrong that you do not even need to vet the citations before deleting the edits. Thus you infer by your own deterministic theory of (medical) microbiology that L forms cannot tolerate heat—GrahamColm says so—and refute a journal article specifically addressing the topic.
Perhaps you can work out your philosophical errors in medical sciences still operating on positivism [Skurvydas A, "New methodology in biomedical science: Methodological errors in classical science", Medicina (Kaunas), 2005;41(1):7-16], not demand to spread them into biology's pure microbiology and force Wikipedia articles on biology topics to preserve your sociocultural, philosophical, ideological, and unscientific confusion by taking pure microbiology back to the 1870s with your medical faith, by way of social heuristics, presuming universal truth of your favorite applied science because people with medical credentials—who are not biologists or the relevant scholars—said their own claims are true but never trained you what basic science even is [Clark JN et al, "The paradoxical reliance on allopathic medicine and positivist science among skeptical audiences", Soc Sci Med, 2007 Jan;64(1):164-73]. Kusername (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The roots of this error and bias go deep

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).

Kusername (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The allegations at me are bold yet lack a single citation in a reliable source or even explained illustration

Decline reason:

Sorry, but your post is much too long. Please provide a short (1 or 2 paragraph) summary. Please take time to read the guidance about how to request to be unblocked linked in this message first though, and note that you're not going to be unblocked if it appears likely that you'll continue to edit disruptively, which I'm afraid the above and below very long posts do indicate. Please also take the time to read the policies Wikipedia:Consensus, WP:AGF and WP:NPA as you will need to demonstrate that you'll act in accordance with them. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 never got around to finishing the statement that I sought to make. Yet I wish to challenge this block before it expires, because I believe there is great evidence that the block is an unabashed abuse of Wikipedia. When I falsify each accusation, GrahamColm—the editor who imposed the block on my account—simply switches accusation.

On the "Transplant rejection" article, which I'm about halfway the main author of, GrahamColm claimed that the references were unfit to be on the article's page, but refused to point out what clause in the Wikipedia guidelines they failed to meet. GrahamColm just cites to whole guideline page. One reference in the article was merely about history of transplant rejection—it was an online article, free, published in the magazine of Massachusetts General Hospital. The other was part of the second-year curriculum of the University of South Carolina medical school education, leading to the degree MD, a free webpage kept up to date by the medical school. If those are not reliable sources on the topic, then what is the standard not being met? I could find nothing on the page of Wikipedia guidelines that forbid such references. GrahamColm never clarified it, but I let GrahamColm have GrahamColm's way and remove the references.

My prior post here on this talk page responds just in part to the accusations made at me about my edits to the "L-form bacteria" article, and altogether bold yet vague and unsubstantiated allegations about my editing of three or four other articles, have all been merely GrahamColm's opinions. Not a single claim by GrahamColm has been cited in a published source. My prior post shows the portions of Wikipedia's guidelines on neutral point of view GrahamColm is violating: simply deleting cited material that GrahamColm disfavors. After I pointed out, above on this talk page, that GrahamColm missed some of my edits in the L form article predating GrahamColm's first edit of it, Graham then went back and deleted every single one of my revisions to the article. Yet I edited it in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. I had deleted no cited material, and only expanded on it, clarified it, and also balanced the neutral point of view.

The bulk of the literature actually discussing L forms in human pathology indicate tremendous evidence that they are key in cryptic disease processes. The citation now in the article that is carrying excess weight is merely a systematic review—not exactly authoritative when assessing disease etiology instead of mere clinical effectiveness of a treatment—is in only one clinical database and it searched back to 1934 but used a term term for L forms of far more recent origin, and it searched for association with infectious disease. L forms are considered to be involved mainly in cryptic disease processes, not in evident infectious diseases. Anyone much familiar with L forms and pathology would recognise that nearsighted perspective in trying to infer that their role in disease was doubtful—by, of all things, a systematic review. Systematic review is for evidence-based medicine, in other words treatment, not for unraveling disease mysteries of pathology. And yet I did not delete the citation, just clarified what it actually said.

As revealed on the discussion page to the "Virology]" article, GrahamColm has proudly declared GrahamColm's bias: the conception that GrahamColm is effectively omniscient on pure microbiology (basic science) by knowledge of medical microbiology (applied science), which GrahamColm assert to share a unified view, although GrahamColm had to ask what basic virology even is. I do not claim that my edits cannot be edited further or that they are flawless. And some things that I state could, I'm sure, be better balanced. Yet GrahamColm instead just makes bold declarations, gives no citations, and makes massive deletions of cited material, apparently merely by contagion heuristic upon seeing something that I added it.

When making massive deletions to article "Fred Griffith", where I am the primary author, GrahamColm deleted a section giving insight into the context of Griffith's report—context quite little known otherwise except by historians of science and historians of medicine and sociologists of medicine and scholars of public health—as to the climate of bacteriology, medicine, and public health during Griffith's time. GrahamColm deletes the entire section and makes a comment in the edit note as if it were absolutely bizarre that that section was in the article. Well, as it happens, Griffith was a bacteriologist who was the medical officer with the UK's Ministry of Health—its public health bureau. I mean, even if one believes that things in the section could be better balanced, is is reasonable to asset that there is no connection and delete the whole section and imply it was there only bizarrely? And GrahamColm deleted the entire subsection about Griffith's legacy in biology, for which he was long recalled by Joshua Lederberg and by an memorial lecture started for Griffith by Microbiology journal some 40 years after his 1928 report eventually wound up revolutionising biology by the early 1960s? The lecture continues into the 21st century. Yet now no one reading the article would have a clue of any this. Then GrahamColm reqested permission to delete the photo of the drastic pleomorphic transformation of the bacteria. Curiously, my first encounter with GrahamColm occurred by dispute over pleomorphism—GrahamColm claiming it was false.

When undoing all of my edits to the article on L forms—the very pleomorphic forms of bacteria that in the history of microbiology it was speculated that bacteria transformed into to become "invisible viruses" that GrahamColm asserted as "unlikely" and deleted by edits to the "Pleomorphism (microbiology)" article—GrahamColm claims, about the my edits to the "L-form bacteria" article, "later additions are speculative, based and primary studies and have not been independantly confirmed and reported in WP:RS sources".

Frankly, that ranges from absolutely false to irrelevant. There is a valid point that the data on L forms surviving boiling and autoclaving could be stated with a more neutral point of view: merely edited to say, "Data has been reported...", not wholesale deletion of the information. If GrahamColm were familiar with pure microbiology—not insisting to reduce it to medical microbiology—GrahamColm might have not stated the utter falsehood that L forms cannot tolerate heat, as I cited in the 3rd edition of a textbook devoted to such bacterial variants that some variants of L forms exhibit heat tolerance. My above post on my talk page notes that bacteria regularly survive pasteurisation in cryptic forms. Actually, however, some forms of bacteria thrive in boiling water (thermophiles).

Everything else I added about L forms is mere standard knowledge in L forms. Apparently, absolutely committed to medical microbiology—mere fragments of pure microbiology—GrahamColm believes that GrahamColm's opinion is more authoritative than the reliable source, the paper by Emmy Klieneberger-Nobel, the individual credited with discovering L forms, who explained, in a 1951 paper on the topic, that bacteria can produce tiny granules that can fuse to become L forms that then transform into giant bodies that break up into bacteria. That was one of her first findings, however, some 15 years earlier. GrahamColm deleted that saying it wasn't cited in the paper. When I pointed out it was on the first two pages and restored my edits, GrahmColm merely switched the claim, when deleted my edits again, that "L forms cannot tolerate heat".

To think that is not confirmed is confession of extreme ignorance of, and utter opposition to, basic knowledge of L form biology. Louis Dienes, one of the most eminent L form researchers, offered a figure of L forms, transformed into giant bodies, breaking up into bacteria [Dienes L & Weinberger HJ, "The L forms of bacteria", Bacteriol Rev, 1951 Dec;15(4):245–88, fig 2]. GrahamColm exclaimed "1951!" about the date of Klieneberger-Nobel's paper. Actually, the interested researchers respect the old information, and instead regret that research on L forms has waned, and that cultures are being lost [Allan EJ et al, "Bacterial L-forms", Adv Appl Microbiol, 2009;68:1-39]. Apparently, some individuals, would like it that way, since then perhaps they can limit our knowledge of the natural world to their medical applied science's ideology [Zalewski Z, "Importance of philosophy of science to the history of medical thinking", Croat Med J, 1999 Mar;40(1):8-13]. Kusername (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Kusername (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Statement of my view of my use of Wikipedia Kusername (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. If it is meant to be a pointer to the text below as a reason for unblocking, then the answer is that your editing has been highly disruptive in many ways, and your persistent failure to get the point is not helpful. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 met Consensus, AGF, and NPA as well as any reasonable person can. The first accusations on my talk about violating NPA were posted by someone who opened discussion by posting a mocking photo and ended by cursing at me on the "Scientific realism" article discussion page. Despite my error to try to resolve personal attacks on the discussion page, I never made personal attacks: I stayed in the upper three levels of the pyramid for avoiding personal attacks. On this block now, virtually everything I have edited on microbiology topics has been deleted by one individual, yet I have not retaliated, simply tried to keep editing to NPOV ["L-form bacteria discussion page]. That I'm running amok adding phony citations and misinformation is unsubstantiated with a single explained illustration, let alone citation. The claims and accusations switch or just get vaguer when I falsify them with citations, yet I have offered explanation and citation for my indications. I have not retaliated at belittling edit notes ["Fred Griffith" history page]. Now that I finish reading the page on unblock requests, I see the title of my unblock request was quite inappropriate. My error was seeking remedy to what I felt is abuse of power, but this is the wrong place for that. I presumed that, since it was my own talk page, I could give my own view, yet I still need, for this use, to keep it closer to my own action. Still, I think my previous unblock request is mostly on my actions in their context, since I was editing—and showing forbearance—in especially adverse conditions and I was the only one trying to improve NPOV in the articles. Yes, I made the "Scientific realism" and "Immune system" articles very long—and those edits were reverted by others, not GrahamColm, without substantiation either—since they are vast topics and they simply require long treatment, starting from first principles, to even be introductory for an average reader, and my view is that it is error to expect everything to be short and predictable.

As for the alleged evidence that I'm editing Wikipedia articles disruptively because of my own post on my talk page (not the unblock request), I think that false, however. I posted a short response on my talk page, but then a few minutes later got a block placed on my account, and I responded, then, with specific analysis and citations—for open scrutiny of my position—on my own talk page. I do not expect everyone to read it, yet I think it a fitting use of my own talk page to respond to such bold yet unsubstantiated allegations that I believe amount—upon my own integrity to say—to a concerted if unwitting effort to suppress biology information and history of biology. My saying that here, in the unblock request, is relevant, because that why I am contributing to Wikipedia, because this is simply mainstream biology that the public is literally about a century behind on through confusion with medical ideology. I wrote 10 paragraphs when requesting unblock since the accusations span my conduct on about 5 articles and deep accusations involving medicine's conflict with biology and society, and I do believe—as many scholars explain—that these particular issues are vastly major in their affects on society, why the reactions are so strong, since they touch core presumptions about the world and each person's place in it [Holtzman E, "Science, philosophy, and society: some recent books", Int J Health Serv, 1981;11(1):123-49]. On articles less touchy, I took the "Major histocompatibility complex" article from about 42,500 byes down to about 31,000 bytes with more clarity and better organization [diff]. I took "Transplant rejection" from 14,395 bytes 14,374 bytes while adding much clarification on immunology and improved organization [diff]. I am the main writer of the "The Rockefeller University" article, which had virtually no history, and only about two citations, before I began editing it [diff]. Kusername (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your block has been extended to indefinite. I am concerned that your disruptive editing would continue based on your comments above. Graham Colm (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to set the record straight

I'm researching vaccines and came across your comments. Looks like you know really well what you're doing, even though others don't agree. I'd like to follow you on any social network you may use (facebook, twitter, google plus) or perhaps get your email address, as you may help me correct some problems with the polio page (and other pages related to so called "vaccine-prevantable diseases"). Please coonsider replying to me via email or via twitter.com/elifarley THANKS!! Elifarley (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Kusername"