User talk:TimVickers

Welcome to Tim Vickers's talk page. Today is Thursday, September 12, 2024; it is now 03:03 (UTC/GMT) Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A descriptive header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions. Talk page guidelines Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and try to be be polite.

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 08:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained

As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:48Z

Barnstar

It was a while ago, but I haven't forgotten.

<Moved to trophy cabinet> :)

ref:deletion Satish Babu

Hi, The page Satish Babu was deleted on 13th of February.It was about the contributions of a journalist to the Regional Media. Can you let me know how it could find relevance and where i can find the deleted page? User:Madhuritalluri(talk)

Admiration

I admire your image works !

Thanks!

thank you very much!!! You´ve been very useful, keep in touch! blitox

RfA Thanks

A message from WarthogDemon.

Korean Fir I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, was unsuccessful with 61 support, 25 oppose, and 4 neutral. I've been taking the advice of the Opposes into practice and hopefully I can improve myself. Once again, thank you. ^_^

Thank you

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

April 2008

OK :)

Barnstar

Moved to trophy cabinet.

Thanks!

Moved to trophy cabinet

Well done

Moved to trophy cabinet.

For your help on Pulmonary contusion

Moved to trophy cabinet

Dear Tim

moved

Please stop subtle mass vandalism

66.251.199.141 inserted bogus material with fake references into dozens of articles. I have manually reverted dozens of the edits, but this has to be stopped. He regularly uses invented refs by Giannini et al. Take a look. The claims are completely idiotic, sound scientific to the lay reader, are dangerous in medical articles. Stop him, Tim. I can't because no admin. Thanks in advance. 70.137.179.88 (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ion

The other ref Giannini, Giannini, Giannini et al is also bogus. read the abstract. Article protected, I can't edit it. Must be a hoax by Ohio State. 70.137.179.88 (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

More clearly, Giannini and his relatives with 4 or 5 different initials are a very gifted bunch. They are a hoax by Ohio state with 100s of publications about PCP psychosis, foot fetishism, medieval gonorrhea, psychological phenomena, detoxification etc. Don't be misguided by the PMIDs. We had a similar genius with 100s of bogus inventions entered into IEEE and other journals as a hoax, also citing each other. Was complete bogus but looked genuine. See also "Journal of irreproducible results". This is rather treacherous. 70.137.179.88 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So what would be the "climactic heat stress" in the ref by Giannini, Giannini, Giannini et al? The abstract is gibberish. As I said, it is not the first time I have seen gibberish in Pubmed. These are academic hoaxes, see also above the case of IEEE journals, and you are gullible. 70.137.179.88 (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is greek fraternity/sorority crap from Ohio State. Trust me. Not the first time I have seen it, and I am 62 years old. 70.137.179.88 (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes for depression and for seasonal disorder such claims exist, however still questionable. But not for "climactic heat stress", the heat stress if somebody is whacking off. 70.137.179.88 (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Steroids

Liver damage is particular to first pass metabolism of 17-alkylated oral steroids, not others. Article tells gibberish about that. 70.137.179.88 (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Xymmax RfA

I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. The way you dug into my contribs for some evidence of article writing was helpful, and I believe it helped keep that particular objection down to a low roar. I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. Happy editing, and thanks again! Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Giannini

There is another Giannini ref in Gonorrhea, talking about gonorrheal foot fetishism. This is suspiciously the same crap as in the foot fetishism article, one of the favorite topics of the Giannini family. We need a second run on the Gianninis, they are a whole gang, not only AJ Giannini. They are strangely specialized in drugs and overheated immature phantasies, as seen in junior college and frat houses. 70.137.179.88 (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoax

It is a hoax, trust me. I can immediately point you to more articles, which are hoaxes, but listed in PubMed and cited. It is a sport to do that. Trust me. If you go through you win. Wait a minute, I dig something out for you, then you see. 70.137.179.88 (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.summarization.com/~radev/ilist/0374.html there you are. It is a sport. I find more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.179.88 (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Here for the sake of the argument and to relax for a moment: Give this a shot. Write a paper in a minute.

http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/ 70.137.179.88 (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a google book available by Giannini. Maybe thats useful. Generally I would prefer if facts are notable and broadly accepted as fact, i.e. easily backed by multiple references, teaching books etc. The connection of gonorrhea with foot fetishism doesn't belong to the notable facts about gonorrhea, even if it turns out to be true. Please remember the discussions we had about temazepam, and the effort it took to clear the article of trivia and hard to check anecdotal findings. As I said there, virtually everything has once been suspected, tried, investigated, contradicted. It takes a long time until the established and material facts crystallize. In this sense the Wikipedia is just a self-proliferating avalanche of crap, in particular wrt. psychoactive drugs, religion, politics and any stupidity that could be funny or exciting for high school kids or religious or political zealots or druggies or reborn anti-druggies or teetotaler Jesus people or 12-steppers etc., not to forget scientologists and Narconon zombies on their way to clean the world. 70.137.131.133 (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I see this is a multidisciplinary genius and his OR is so sophisticated that we are all too dumb to really value it! This is going to be fun. It is not even OR in the WP sense! 70.137.131.133 (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

See here for the peer reviewed multidisciplinary semantic and ergonomic research on the heuristics of the styles of porter beer and related paradigmal eulogism.

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Porter_%28beer%29&diff=242828115&oldid=241380602

We certainly need a multidisciplinary team fluent in greek to really value it. But my time and effort are too valuable to spend on debugging such crap. 70.137.131.133 (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So this did so far cost us approx 10 man-hours to find and revert. That this are crap additions is obvious, maybe provoked by the intellectual challenge to slip under sooo intellectually advanced crap, that only multidisciplinary teams hopefully can recognize it. But it is destructive to the factual content and reliability of the WP. Remember Goodson's additions to temazepam. It is vandalism, and I would not have unblocked them. Highly advanced team of scientists? Give me a break. Its a sport and they are just wankers from some junior college. 70.137.131.133 (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoser and venomoids

Pardon my lack of response, I wasn't trying to be mysterious. I did the second save on the split venomoid article, and was disconnected by my blasted ISP. When I returned home, and sorted them out, I was glad to notice you had found the article and edited it. The article was my solution to what I see as residual problem with the Hoser art, cheers for contribs there as well! I hope to be able to focus on content again, not thuggish and unsubstantiated accusations, thanks for being a model wikipedian. cygnis insignis 16:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I did a light fact check and recast the sections. I meant to let you know, just remembered I didn't. Cheers, cygnis insignis 18:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ping!

You've got mail. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you think you could read and correct the paper this week, or will it be next week? Just so I have an idea about timing, it's fine either way. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, your other work definitely has priority, I just like to know so I can plan my own stuff. I'll be looking forward to it for sometime next week then. Thanks and good luck with the other papers! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

PANDAS

In case you want a little challenge :-) PMID 15721825 (a review) has a decent overview of PANDAS under "Neuroimmunology". Even though "I get it", it's tough for me to write about; specifically, I find it very hard to paraphrase the tecno-mumbo-jumbo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and check out the figure on page 153. Maybe some graphics genius could make something for the TS article :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Updated confirmation of the trend at PMID 18823914 (primary study, but in line with review). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force

I wanted to know if you (or any friends of yours) are interested in dermatology, and would be willing to help me with the WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force? Kilbad (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team help requested

Hi Tim, I notice you are mentoring a couple of students at WikiProject AP Biology 2008. The FA-Team has just launched a mission to help this project, and also WikiProject North of the Rio Grande, improve articles towards featured quality. I'm hoping you would like to join in this endeavour and support a couple more articles. If so, please add your name to the articles you are watchlisting on the mission page. Thanks, Geometry guy 19:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Life

Hello TimVikers. Thank you for taking the task to finally cleanup the table in the Life article displaying the scientific classification of life. I do have feedback for you, if I may, to further clean and simplify it. As per its heading ot title, this table is focused on the contemporary Domains (x3) and Kingdoms (x6). The current displayed subdivisions of flagellates (Bikonta & unikonta) down to specific species, adds confusion to this basic classification supposedly limited to Domains and Kingdoms. In addition, the Kingdom of Plantae is now displayed as as a genus(?) of the phillum microphita (microscopic algae). I humbly suggest to actually display only the 3 Domains (bacteria, archea, eukarya) and the 6 Kingdoms (Eubacteria, archaebacteria, protista, fungi, plantae and animalia). Please let me know what you think and if you have the time for that. Thank you, -BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		For you, just because I seem to come across your fantastic contributions thoughout Wikipedia's science articles. Deli nk (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, can I ask you a favor? Could you please take a look at calorad sometime? It seems quite spammy to me, and I've tried a little to cleanup it up, but the science is a bit beyond what I know and much of my edits have been reverted. It could really use the help of someone with a good understanding of biochemstry/biology/medicine and of Wikipedia's quality standards. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Deli nk (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Paul Smith the banned user

Thank you for neutralizing Smith's new sockpuppets. --Loremaster (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Query

What are you basing this on?[1] --Elonka 18:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we know Elonka supports an indefinite block, at least [2] Slrubenstein | Talk 00:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I need your opinion

[User:WLU] suggested I contact you. We've had a running conversation for a year or two over the articles about Wiley Protocol and T. S. Wiley. I agreed sometime back to not edit either article as I am clearly COI, but I make suggestions through the discussion pages. To make a long story short, the detractors of Wiley have been very efficient in getting their opinions into "reliable sources," but Wiley has not. As a result, Wiley gets beat up pretty badly on Wikipedia. However, WLU's insertion recently of comments that the protocol is "controversial" (what HRT isn't?), is dangerous and the dosages are "potentially dangerous high dosages" (whatever that means) simply can't stand. There is no research to back this up. While the articles prominently point out there is no research to support Wiley (directly) the omission that the same is true for the detractors is just wrong. I won't ask you to read the long history, but just look at Talk under "Please fix this" (and expand it) and tell me if you agree with his point of view. Thanks. Neil Raden (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

My Bad

In the deletion attempt of Donna Eden, I gave the impression that the article had been published in 2007. Sorry. My bad. It was published in 2008. See the very bottom of pdf version of the article. They don't have the author/subject list compiled for 2008, yet. If this changes your view, I would appreciate an edit. Thanks.--Mbilitatu (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with formatting the reference.--Mbilitatu (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I wonder where you get your sheepish patience with idiots who are constantly vandalizing WP, as in the Giannini case and Temazepam. I don't have the nerve for that, pooh, I need an institutional size pack of blood pressure pills now. I need a vacation, as the terminator said. (people advised me to teach at a college, can't do that either, just no nerves for that) 70.137.138.161 (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comments regarding QuackGuru

I saw your edit on QuackGuru's talk page and then the message on Elonka's talk and what you're saying there really worries me. Since I've also been closely watching his contribs lately as well, I had a few issues that I was wondering if you had seen. He's been continuing to attack other editors [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. There have been some problems with him trying to force a particular view of an article and shut down discussions by stretching a very tightly worded RfC beyond its bounds even after having been warned about this tactic [9], [10], [11]. He continues making daily (or more frequent) edits to another editor's talk page that duplicate his comments on the article talk and occasionally attack the editor even though he's been asked to stop and even advised to stay away from this editor, for this one you'll get the best idea of the scope by looking at the history instead of specific diffs - for the requests to stay away [12], [13], [14], [15]. He meets any comments or advice on his behavior (or things he thinks are about his behavior) with accusations of bad faith [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] and he reacted in a very defensive manner when I gave another editor a barnstar [21], [22]. Overall, he has been hampering dispute resolution at Talk:Chiropractic (again, its really worth it to read some of the threads there to get the best view of this problem).

I have received multiple emails (in confidence) from editors involved in the Chiropractic discussion who are very concerned by QuackGuru but have indicated that they are very uncomfortable saying so on wiki because they will be harassed for those comments. It is my opinion that his involvement in the dispute at Chiropractic is severely detrimental; editors are having difficulty discussing or resolving issues in part due to his repetitive comments that he puts in multiple threads on the article talk and expands to editor's talk pages as well. His comments are frequently unhelpful and off topic as well as being very dismissive of other editors opinions or ideas; instead of addressing the issues at hand, he continues to sidetrack discussions by bludgeoning editors with the same comment repeatedly. I was seriously considering suggesting a topic ban myself before I saw Elonka was trying to gently redirect his efforts. I could not disagree more strongly with your assessment that there is "nothing of concern here" - there are a number of things that are very wrong here. Shell ^babelfish 05:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Since I watch Tim's page, I noticed this thread and took the liberty of checking all the diffs. As an editor who doesn't know the party in question, or you, and is only looking at whether the diffs substantiate your allegations, I have to confess that I'm not seeing it in any case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Sandy, are you saying you don't believe those diffs show attacks? Or that he isn't making accusations of bad faith? Or that he doesn't continue to post to a talk page he's been asked to avoid? These seem like issues that are rather evident on their own rather than interpretive. If that's not what you meant, could you clarify here what part you don't think is well substantiated? Unfortunately, I'm certain further diffs can be provided if there's any question. Shell ^babelfish 05:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

FORMAL INVITATION TO BLOG

..Please defend EVOLUTION, and stand up for yourself at [23] (GeorgeFThomson (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC))