User talk:Cri du canard

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

Welcome!

Hello, Cri du canard, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthomolecular medicine

Hi,

I wanted to express some comments about your behaviour on WP. As a new user, you are already gaming he system in a war against orthomolecular medicine. This is wrong. There are practitioners of megavitamin therapy that are "out there", that are quacks, that are making exagerated claims. If you want to be productive, you should focus on dealing with these claims on a case-by-case basis, as need be. Using a broad stroke to try to discredit a field of study just because there are some quacks on the fringes is misguided. From what I can tell, orthomolecular medicine is nothing more than the common-sense idea of "a good diet is healthy for you", reformulated at the cellular/biochemical level. Its not rocket science to realize that biological cells metabolize nutrients in thier surroundings. Some nutrients in too high a concentration are poisons, some in too low a concentration lead to cell illness or death from deficiency or starvation. The idea that there is a middle between "too high" and "too low" that is "good for you" is not pseudoscience. Please focus your efforts, please be a productive citizen at WP. By making false claims, you make yourself sound nuttier than the folks you claim you are tryingto debunk. linas 16:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am legitimately concerned about the POV problems in the OM article. I am not the first person to express such concerns. My sources are prominent mainstream medical organizations such as the American Cancer Society and ACSH. In comparison, the existing article was entirely the work of pro-OM language from the less-than-credible orthomed.org. I have not made any false claims, and you have not identified any false claims that I've made. Please assume good faith. -- Cri du canard 18:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt it is a hot, emotional topic with plenty of counterfactual sites in both general directions - "duck hunting" & "alt med", some pretty sophisticated. You, without too fine a point[1], confute OM with other subjects and try to make orthomed a radioactively poisoned article, science and fairness be damned. I also want to add one offer for the record. If you see something really unscientific, it may be some nonsense trying to hide behind the real, still contentious, science of orthomed. If it pertains to the orthomed series of articles, I will be more than happy to help you fix it, and in some actual previous examples of persistant, commercial violations, hammer it scientifically. I do ask you to try to re-examine your thinking on subject, you accept & are exposed to very one sided views right now. I think I have read your favorite authors for ~30 years. It took a long time to open my mind, make the effort to independently examine the literature, run some actual physiological tests and begin see through some of the spin. I don't like to be fooled (aforementioned sites) or fooled with. Thank you.--TheNautilus 19:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've repeatedly invited you to identify a major medical society that endorses orthomolecular medicine given the number of major medical societies that condemn it in the harshest of terms. Your failure to cite anything other than orthomed.org has not been persuasive to me. All you've cited so far are mainstream doctors noting the importance of nutrition, but most nutritionists don't call themselves orthomolecular scientists, so it seems to me more that quacks are hiding behind legitimate science by claiming it as their own (a problem I repeatedly see in other fields of pseudoscience) than OM practitioners being victimized because of the shadiness of a handful of OM practitioners. Where are the legitimate OM practitioners making legitimate claims and speaking out against the prominent best-selling OM practitioners making bogus claims? Where were the OM organizations writing amicus briefs on behalf of chemotherapy for Tyrell Dueck? But, again, my goal is WP:NPOV, so even if you're right, it doesn't matter: it's not a reason that the article shouldn't reflect the mainstream POV with the prominence it deserves. -- Cri du canard 19:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited the priority scientific publications, medicine typically lags science 10-100 yrs, sometimes more. Orthomed (as Wikipedia) is more concerned what published science & clinical results say rather than what its publicly much criticized, commerically threatened, venal competitors say. Medical societies are extremely political and economic organizations, sometimes not very fraternal either, and certainly not sterling scientific organizations, at least according the scientists (you can find your own). Now I have someone in a #- medical research lab, and the whole time your precious medical professions have been endlessly criticized by the other research principals to the point *I* am tired of hearing about the criticism of the doctors. (I actually have to be supportive.) As far as your bandying that "ps" around after you have been repeatedly informed, rely on questioned, -able sources of medical authority (qw type selections primarily), which is a questionable or least limited scientific practice anyway. Ignoring the national & scientific references at least suggests that you may not be reading them or might be reading them incorrectly. Your "authoritative" position is essentially self referential POV (and my discussion contains OR, which is allowed in talk pages, as I try to be conversational rather than combative) when challenged by another SPOV at Wikipedia. I don't count on ever hearing mea culpa from conventional medicine, its modus operandi is often quiet acceptance when forced and / or noises as if it first discovered something. Typically medicine criticizes previous medicine in a moving front about 50 years behind as scientifically unwashed e.g. when I was a kid early 1900s (pre-Salvarsan 606, the arsenic based, first antibiotic for syphillis) was at the frontier, now it's World War II. Even, or especially, if the treatment still appears clinically relevant. Commercially based disparagement is how one might interpret that. Medicine changes its therapeutic tune in patent-related 20-25 year cycles. Compare that with the physical sciences. These are not hallmarks of pat, objective, settled science.--TheNautilus 21:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my eyes the disparagement of mainstream-medical criticism of orthomolecular claims reflects commercial motivations of orthomolecular proponents. In any event, we are not members of a committee tasked with determining whether OM is a viable treatment method. Wikipedia is to merely report notable opinions in accord with WP:V and WP:NPOV. -- Cri du canard 21:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting information from Orthomolecular medicine

As I have explaned on the OM talk page, you are deleting vital, mainstream sourced information. Stop it at once. Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The record will reflect I have done no such thing. -- Cri du canard 13:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The record will reflect that you deleted the distinction between studies that reduced the incidence of various conditions (e.g. cancer incidence) with studies that show an over-all reduction in mortality. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The record will reflect that I restored material that MichaelCPrice has deleted in his violation of 3RR.[2] -- Cri du canard 13:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring text deleted in bad faith is not in violation of 3RR. I have warned you and provided an explanation of why your deletions are not appropriate here and on the article talk page. I have issued you with a 3RR warning -- there's nothing I can do now but report you if you persist. Please don't make me take this action. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not playing argument clinic with you. Multiple editors agree my edits are appropriate.[3] I've made one reversion to restore material you deleted from a different user's edit. You've reverted two different editors three times to delete material, while leaving misleading edit summaries.[4][5][6] This comment on your talk page is also telling about your tactics on my talk page. -- Cri du canard 13:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tactics that are appropriate for dealing with vandals or cranks. BTW what you fail to mention is that you deleted my inserted material 3 times. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you really believe this false claim you're making, please, report me for vandalism at WP:ANI. You will be corrected by the administration, since I haven't vandalized anything. -- Cri du canard 14:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insertion of misinformation is sneaky vandalism:

Sneaky vandalism: Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 18:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In view of your repeated and sustained bad faith vandalism, one incident detailed by User:Linas [7], and others detailed on talk:orthomolecular medicine, consider this your final warning: Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I'm calling your bluff. These "warnings" are bad-faith attempts to intimidate me from making legitimate edits. Report me already. I'd be quite happy for an administrator to see how you and linas and nautilus have been behaving, and your three's violations of WP:CIVIL. Here's the WP:RFC/USER page and here's the WP:ANI page. Go document what you think is "repeated and sustained bad faith vandalism", and let's have administrators look at it. linas has already said he'd rubber-stamp your efforts to get me banned because I subscribe to mainstream medical views about orthomolecular medicine and wish to see WP:NPOV followed. -- Cri du canard 03:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read the vandal warning, and the edit in question. The edit is a carefully balanced one based on compromises discussed at the Talk page. Because the compromise was not unanimous, or because User:MichaelCPrice thinks that you misinterpreted the compromise, or that you misinterpreted NPOV policy, is not sufficient reason to accuse someone of vandalism. User:MichaelCPrice may feel this is a dispute, in which case there are many dispute resolution tools available to him on Wikipedia. Even if User:MichaelCPrice feels that User:Cri du canard's edits are stubbornness, bad faith or even disruptive (which I do not agree with) that is no excuse to describe them as vandalism. User:Cri du canard, you do right to stand your ground. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the definitions: how does a "bad faith" edit differ from "vandalism"? --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are not unhappy with you because you subscribe to contventional medical beliefs, but rather because you have an unswerving, disruptive, poisonous style to orthomed that reflects your strong belief system that totally ignores hardcore and analyses evidence such as the 2005-6 PNAS, NIH, CMAJ & Finnish papers on vitamin C. You are trying to cram down pure counterfactual POV where your primary source of information is a skillfully written, polemical POV site. These 2005-6papers demolish the basis of many of your statements & beliefs with respect to vitamin C, one of the biggest topics in orthomed and intricately tied to Pauling.

You are a strong writer, that twists things to lead in the wrong direction and this is disrupting the result badly.--TheNautilus 11:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are describing a content dispute, and for that matter a content dispute where several editors agree with me. But I'm being called a "disruptive, poisonous" "vandal." QuackWatch does have a POV, but it's the majority POV (as endorsed by JAMA, among others), and it therefore belongs in the article per WP:V and WP:NPOV. If we were to exclude everything in the article that has a POV, we'd be left with the fact that Pauling invented the term and nothing else. -- Cri du canard 11:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we'd still have the mainstream sourced studies I've cited. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citing them reflects a POV that those studies support OM, which is not uncontroversial: (1) the studies' conclusions are far from universally accepted; (2) one can plausibly note that the studies "support" OM only in the sense of fromagalogy, since, for at least the ones I've spot-checked, the authors don't give any indication that they subscribe to orthomolecular tenets. -- Cri du canard 12:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are interpretative issues on various Wikipedia policies and guidelines that have sometimes been dealt with successfully by reference to a general form of SPOV (*all* evidence cited, evaluated & weighted w/o the "special rituals/forms of only --- science" i.e. dbRCT). Conventional medicine has been captured and locked by ex cathedra pronouncements and self appeals to (their) authority. Ex cathedra - any statement of (in)effectiveness w/o *any* data against somebody else's albeit limited data. Reminds one of numerous antivitamin statements by conventional medicine for *any dosage* administration of vitamin C from to 10 g/day to 300 g/day for any condition including cancer and colds. Appeals to authority frequent, and if the authority has no (zero) data, why are they the authority, especially if they refused several lifetimes of requests to get important data when competent individuals exhausted their capabilities to surface the issue. All the lack of dbRCT really says is that the material does not has extensive, *authoritative* data to legally justify a potentially (frequently) dangerous new drug. Vitamins are not such drugs, and the distant danger points are usually hard work even for suicides that can get more satisfaction with conventional medicines. A potential issue is SPOV hierarchy in mutually exclusive positions where the supposed majority may shift with the definition of the relevant Wiki group (mentioned before) and the case of hardcore scientific authorities publishing new conclusions but old guard professionals or another professional cling to their superstitions, and claim their majority; or similar situations in clearly identified counterfactuality. Does Wiki really want to totally ignore a pronounced counterfactual situation involving real scientific authority in a subject just because an established group, suppose "Hell's Hellions", say rapists rule??? I don't think so.

I don't think you have adequately the 2005-6 refs I have cited several times now. Essentially your treatment is one form of denial or avoidance, or another--TheNautilus 15:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. You'd have a lot more luck getting me to look at your sources if it wasn't for the fact that the first five times I've chased down the mainstream sources you and Price cite, they turned out either not to support the claims made or turned out to have nothing to do with supporting orthomolecular medicine except in the fromagalogy sense. When you cry wolf so often, you can't be surprised that I find better ways to spend my day than to track down your latest blizzard of questionable cites, especially when the reputable organizations that keep track of these things seem not to be that impressed with them.[8] Show me AMA or APA or AAP or Canada or NIH or a reputable medical society endorsing orthomolecular reasoning, and then we can talk. But when you try to take credit for curing scurvy hundreds of years before the orthomolecular religion was invented, you lose some credibility.

2. A watchdog group endorsed by JAMA is not "Hell's Hellions." Your hypothetical problem, which has nothing to do with the orthomolecular medicine article, is addressed handily by application of the WP:RS standard. My edits comply with WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and other WP standards, and you acknowledge that they're well-written. That's all that I seek to accomplish. We're not going to conclusively resolve the efficacy of Vitamin C on a Wikipedia talk page.

3. There are many many pages on Wikipedia where I'm frustrated with the NPOV rule because I know that one side is right. Lee Harvey Oswald, for example. That's just the flaw of an open-source encyclopedia where there isn't a single editor-in-chief, and NPOV rules is the only means of herding cats. You're welcome to create your own webpage with a different standard than Wikipedia's. But on this site we have to follow the rules. Bullying editors with threats and insults and lengthy original research on why mainstream sources are "counterfactual" because no one reputable believes in your revolutionary theory just persuades me that you don't grok the NPOV rules (much less WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF). Do read the FAQ. -- Cri du canard 22:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Tricks

I see you are up to your old tricks again of continually deleting qualifiers (e.g. "some") in an attempt to poison the well. Please stop:

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted "Some" because "Some" was a POV characterization of the facts, as well as a violation of WP:AWW. "Some" implies "some" rather than "all"; your failure to identify any who aren't in the category shows that "some" is inappropriate.

Moreover, how many bogus "last warnings" are you going to give in your attempt to intimidate me from making legitimate edits? The only one reverting is you. I repeat, for the third time: stop cluttering my talk page with false accusations. If you really believe my legitimate edits are vandalism, then report me, so an administrator can teach you what vandalism means. And if you don't believe it, then stop harassing me with bad-faith insults in violation of WP:CIVIL. -- Cri du canard 06:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you carry on reverting the NPOV "some" and replacing it with the unverifiable "all" you will see how bogus my warning were. That you make light of such things is your affair -- I wouldn't brag about it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, all you have to do is falsify "all" by showing a counterexample: the existential falsifies the universal claim to the contrary. "All" is verified by multiple cites. -- Cri du canard 12:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again, the only improperly edit-warring is MichaelCPrice, who has been reverting indiscriminately.23:20 12 August 8:08 13 August -- Cri du canard 14:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your ArbCom Vote

Thanks for your interest in this year's ArbCom elections. Unfortunately, we were required to set a criteria for voters, and that was decided to be the following:

Voters must have a registered account that was created on or before November 1, 2008.
Voters must have made 150 edits to articles on that account on or before November 1, 2008.

According to an automatic check, which I confirmed by looking at your contribution history, you have not met the requirements. Either you have not made 150 edits to articles (these edits must be in the main namespace) or you did not make them before the deadline of 23:59:59 November 1, 2008 (UTC). I've indented your votes. If you believe I sent this message in error, and that you do meet the requirements, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]