Hey Infinitesimus I moved what you added to the subpage on management as the small numbers and the fact that it is primary research rather than a review does not make it of great enough significance to be on the main page. You can find it here Tuberculosis_treatment#Current_research Cheers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, and welcome. Thanks for your contributions. Could I request a couple of minutes of your time to guide you through some pretty important stuff, because I think it will be very helpful for your upcoming contributions.
Firstly, please make sure to cite scientific work in a fashion that makes it easy to grasp for the reader. That means that "bare URLs" are pretty much out, and that citations should be formatted with citation templates. There are various ways to automatically generate citation templates, e.g. MakeRef and Diberri's template filler.
Secondly, I cannot emphasise enough how careful one must be in selecting sources. An "old-fashioned" encyclopedia would be expected to base its entries on high-quality sources, such as highly regarded specialist textbooks, academic reviews and such. For medical and bioscientific articles, we have WP:MEDRS. This guideline gives some useful pointers with regards to desirable properties of sources. This is especially imporant in areas that are developing rapidly, and where there is "emerging evidence". Sometimes it might actually be appropriate to leave out certain evidence because it has matured insufficiently for encyclopedia coverage.
I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if you need any further advice. JFW | T@lk 11:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Infinitesimus, thank you for your recent contributions to several science-related articles. I encourage you to take some time to learn about sourcing requirements on Wikipedia. As JFW notes above, WP:MEDRS encourages reliance on peer-reviewed scientific secondary sources when adding information to articles such as AIDS. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added such as to the page AIDS do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on AIDS. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I apologise for the template messages, but spamming Wikipedia articles with information on little-known therapeutics is unacceptable. Reverting other editors to re-insert such spam multiple times is just as unacceptable, and further reverts will likely result in a block. I appreciate your desire to add reliable sources and information about TB; please, by all means continue to do so, but leave out the product promotion. Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep calm, all of the references are peer-reviewed publications or published papers, freely available. An accusation of "spam" should be directed to the 10 journals or so that have published papers by these authors, and to the clinicians themselves. Keep the insults off Wikipedia please. Thanks you, Infinitesimus.
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Infinitesimus, as I appreciate your value to the project and hope that you will continue to contribute your knowledge of HIV and TB, I don't like to do this, but it's important to understand that there are some ground rules, and we must all respect them. Reverting an article as you have done in the past 24 hours is unacceptable, and I have reported your behaviour to the noticeboard as I warned several times. Please realise that the talk page of an article is always open to you if you wish to gain consensus for additions; edit warring is not a viable option. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
((unblock|Your reason here))
below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. NJA (t/c) 07:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Admin note: Also whilst blocked, please review your possibly disruptive use of undo at other articles, e.g. HIV vaccine, Dapsone, and Tuberculosis. Please read up on proper use of revert and our edit warring policies to prevent further and longer blocks in future. Thanks, NJA (t/c) 07:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Since you're just coming off a block for disruptive editing at AIDS, could I ask you not to edit-war and repeatedly insert material to which everyone else objects on the talk page? You're already at three reverts for the day (see WP:3RR), and numerous editors have issues with the changes you keep trying to force in. Maybe we'll get somewhere by discussing it further on the talk page, but continued edit-warring isn't going to enshrine the content you want, and it's likely to engender another block if it continues. MastCell Talk 18:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
As an alternative to simply re-blocking you for resuming your edit warring diff, diff, diff I'm placing you on a 1RR restriction. Further blocks for violating this restriction will be lengthy. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The restriction has been confirmed, see here. Do not exceed one revert per day. This restriction applies for three months. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Infinitesimus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Anyone would take exception to two editors, Scray and Keep deleting and screwing up, repetitively deleting one's writing in wikipedia, all of which is fully referenced and is highly noteworthy. In the dapsone article, there is a complete lack of appropriate mention of anti-inflammatory mechanism of action, which is well published. This author started the process by giving MPO myelperoxidase, only to have it deleted. In the AIDS article, this author wasted several iterations in the Pulmonary section just to get the locals to allow the facts to be properly represented, as per the latest 2009 World Health Organization report, regarding the large percentage of AIDS mortality associated with tuberculosis. The discussion of V-1 had no science or medicine involved, it was simple rejection of the published facts about V-1 Immunitor, a well-known vaccine for HIV that patients in many countries are currently using. Abuse of authors will give Wikipedia a bad name. If something is contraversial, then it can be moved to a section labelled such. Very unfortunate if scientists and doctors lose interest in adding information to wikipedia as they read the papers, due to deletion by Scray and Keep people away from wikipedia who clearly do not read the papers, and perhaps don't even have access to them. AS A RULE: Warn the ones who delete, not the ones who add. As a financial contributor, I want wikipedia to grow with new, referenced information.
Decline reason:
Could you tone down the accusations and ranting? As a rule, admins will not accept a request attacking or accusing other parties, nor will they accept requests that are just long screeds. -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 00:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Wow, lots of people say "wikipedia is ... not a place to publish original research (WP:OR)"JoeSmack Talk:hiv vaccine. Shall we then start working on wikipedia to delete writeups on trials such as the AIDSVAX trial and the ALVAC/AIDSVAX trial since neither was sourced from secondary sources. References given for the latter trial are the primary reference [1] and a clearly unacceptable news item for the second reference.[2] Where is wikipedia going? downhill. --Infinitesimus (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Infinitesimus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Wikipedia really needs to take the side of the writer, not the deleter, in disputes. If contributions are contentious, they should be moved to a "Controversial" section, or a pending section, and they should be shortened or edited to contain an opposing argument, rather than being simply deleted. This is a problem of wikipedia being overrun by lowest common denominator editors who collaborate.
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This individual is bitter and contentious and seems to paint wikipedia with a more and more negative brush on each consecutive block request. I believe that this user needs to be blocked from editing his talk page. Deadkord (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Now lets look at scray's comment: "the change in cytokine levels in peripheral blood is not shown to be of any biological significance". That's a novel idea, not supported by 753 articles on PubMed from the specific string search ("serum cytokine levels"OR "plasma cytokine levels"). The repeated concern about a company person being an author is ridiculous, as ALMOST ALL clinical trials that are funded, with few exceptions, are published with at least one author from the company. Do we remove all references that have one company author from Wikipedia? I hope not.--Infinitesimus (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Infinitesimus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
see above reasons
Decline reason:
None of the above reasons are satisfactory. Let me make this clear. It is not the position you are advancing which is why you are blocked. It is the way you are behaving. Your behavior is clearly tendentious here, and you need to change the way that you interact with people if you wish to edit. Your opinions and the information you are espousing here are irrelevent. Jayron32 04:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Yes, we'd welcome an expert in HIV immunology who wanted to accurately summarise the field of HIV vaccines, this isn't partcularly well developed yet in Wikipedia. However, we do not want somebody who to us appears to want to promote a few selected products to the exclusion of others. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
As a side note, this is a collaborative project. When you contribute here, you accept that others might alter or even delete your edits. People who throw hissy fits when their edits are removed, trimmed, cut down, or otherwise altered are generally not great fits for this particular project, because they spend their entire tenure in a state of constant agitation and wounded pride. As a gesture toward the collaborative aspect of the site, perhaps you could refrain from using snarky nicknames for editors with whom you disagree? MastCell Talk 00:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Infinitesimus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
there has been no justification for preventing the posting of scientifically, socially, and medically important, and well referenced material a few editors who delete in entirety without considering editing. No-one has answered why different standards are applied by top editor Scray to (in this case) V-1 than to references to AIDSVAX (see above comments, for example). Editors should not become revered simply by virtue of having a long history (usually of mediocrity) with Wikipedia. Regarding nicknames - why not ridicule silly nicknames, that is not allowed? Shame.
Decline reason:
Per above and below comments and the fact that's it blatantly obvious you don't play well with others. To wit, actually, seriously, asking "why not ridicule silly nicknames". Please go find another website. So we don't have to waste our time with your temper tantruims, I'm protecting this page for the remainder of the block. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
... in wikipedia can easily stop meaning what I know is..., and instead become who is king [1]idiot?
Take 'em or leave 'em. MastCell Talk 05:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
You have made more than one revert in a 24h period diff and diff, so as per your 1RR editing restriction I am re-blocking you for one week. You may appeal this block in the usual way. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Infinitesimus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have no idea why administrators would want to throttle this editor repeatedly - the reason of "making more than one revert in 24h is erroneous - they were edits, not reverts, and there were no complaints from anyone that I am aware of.
Decline reason:
The reasons are clearly and repeatedly stated in the multiple unblock declines above. No further unblock reason given here.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Alas, this science geek has little interest in fighting this establishment. WIKI's new meaning takes over again. --Infinitesimus (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Infinitesimus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
no reason given. If this was an error, please re-submit.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Unhelpful conduct while blocked; page protected. Sandstein 23:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)