User Talk:Eye.earth

Hi. I'm sorry, but a book by Peter Duesberg is not a reliable source for someone's cause of death. I know you regard this as "my opinion" (which it is), but it's backed by Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing. Reliable sources have mainstream credibility, editorial oversight, and a process of fact-checking. If the New York Times indicates that Paul Gann died of complications of AIDS, that's a reliable source. If Peter Duesberg, whose fringe ideas on HIV/AIDS are universally rejected by the scientific community, writes in a book published by a fringe conspiracist publishing house that Gann died of something else, then I'm sorry, but that is not a reliable source and certainly not suitable to "contradict" the generally accepted story as published in the New York Times. If you disagree, feel free to solicit outside opinions or bring it up on the reliable sources noticeboard. MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

:I doubt that MastCell has read the book that he refutes above (Inventing the AIDS Virus, by Peter Duesberg). I have. It's well reasoned, very heavily referenced, and professionally published. I recommend it to all, and so does Kary Mullis in his introduction to the book. Duesberg, who is a tenured professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley, remains highly respected by his scientific colleagues in spite of his maverick view on HIV/AIDS. In May 2007, Scientific American published his article about cancer. Eye.earth (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

::While the historical significance of Duesberg's early work is undeniable, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that his subsequent career as an AIDS denialist is a case study in wrongheadedness. Likewise, Kary Mullis deserves all of the accolades he's received for the development of PCR, but that doesn't mean that every idea he's endorsed is worthwhile or plausible (cf. glowing raccoons and close encounters of the third kind). MastCell ^Talk 05:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

:{{{icon|25px }}}{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Talk:Zidovudine|With regard to your comments on :Talk:Zidovudine: }}Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} MastCell ^Talk 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

::MastCell's presumption is itself a personal attack. Eye.earth (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

:::No, it's not. MastCell ^Talk 05:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

25px Please do not attack other editors{{#if:Talk:Paul Gann|, which you did here: :Talk:Paul Gann}}. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}} ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APaul_Gann&diff=193970021&oldid=191022196]) MastCell ^Talk 18:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you think, readers? And please sign your posts. Eye.earth (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war{{#if:Paul Gann| according to the reverts you have made on :Paul Gann}}. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}} MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you simply leave my edits alone and let other editors decide the issue? I'd have no problem with that. Regardless, I'll take full advantage of the rule as I see fit. Eye.earth (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

25px Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, {{#if:Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis|as you did to :Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis,}} you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}} OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a rather serious accusation, OrangeMarlin. I challenge you to explain yourself. Eye.earth (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing information from the lead to List of centenarians. The way that this list has been shaped is complex and potentially controversial, and we need far MORE information in the lead than we currently have, not less. If you want to change the consensus or argue against it, please do it on the talk page and explain why you think that #5 on our to-do list is a bad idea. Please also see Wikipedia:Lists#Lead sections in stand-alone lists; our selection criteria for this page is not self-explanatory. Cheers, CP 05:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

:Again, please respect the consensus on this page and STOP removing content from the page. If you want to discuss or change the material in the introduction, please make your suggestions on the talk page. Your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_centenarians&action=edit&undoafter=235887290&undo=236337793 last edit] deleted content and references without any explanation whatsoever. If you continue engaging in disruptive editing and content removal on this page, you will be blocked from editing. Cheers, CP 01:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::Please heed this message, as it will be the LAST warning that I give you on this issue. Your edits to List of centenarians are disruptive and against consensus; you have been asked multiple times to discuss these changes on the talk page of the article, but you have refused to do so or even explain your edits, which are not in line with current Wikipedia policy. For example, your last reduction of the lead you claimed "Essentials only in topic sentence", which is directly the opposite of the policy, which states "Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do. Even when the meaning of a list's title seems obvious, a lead section should be provided which briefly and clearly describes what the list is about. In other words, it should present the inclusion criteria items must meet in order to qualify to be added to the list." By this standard, as has been discussed on the talk page, the lead needs to be expanded, not contracted. Please do not remove material from the lead, or perform any other disruptive edits on this page without discussing them first, or else your behavior will be reported and you will be blocked from editing. Cheers, CP 22:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Since you seem to have no inclination to try and discuss the issue, I have reported your disruptive behavior at Wikiquette alerts in hopes that someone else may be able to explain it better. Cheers, CP 19:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

::::You have continued to show no willingness to even acknowledge my calls for you to discuss the issue, so I have been left with no choice but to seek help at the administrators' noticeboard. The relevant thread is here. Cheers, CP 15:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

CP is simply taking ownership for its own sake. The initial sentence I have attempted to correct was stupid, its "(mostly)" parenthesis inexcusably bad writing. There is no need to define "centenarian" when the word itself is linked to the relevant article, and anyway most readers are going to know what it means. We don't have to do baby-talk here. Eye.earth (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You've been reinserting the same edit at Paul Gann, pushing Peter Duesberg and AIDS denialism into an unrelated biography, for quite some time now. It's been reverted, repeatedly, by a number of different editors who have explained the inappropriateness of your ongoing efforts. You've been directed toward Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms, which you've not bothered to employ. I see from your talk page that you've been running into similar problems elsewhere. Please reconsider your approach. MastCell ^Talk 05:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

25px Please stop assuming ownership of articles{{#if:| such as :{{{1}}}}}. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}} Your edits on a variety of articles that run contrary to WP:CONSENSUS are disruptive, and appear to be ownership of articles. Major changes must always be discussed on the Article Talk page before implementation, and achieve Consensus. -t BMW c- 21:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You're being talked about at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_behavior_by_User:Eye.earth. You might want to think about dealing with this. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

25px Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages {{#if:Christine Maggiore| such as Christine Maggiore}} are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} RetroS1mone talk 16:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

25px Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits{{#if:|, such as the one you made to :{{{Bibliography for Harold Pinter}}},}} did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}

Please stop inserting copyright violation link in Bibliography for Harold Pinter; the format is incorrect also, but the main problem is that the URL links to a page with clearcut notice saying not to distribute its content; it violates the NRO copyright and the copyright of the National Review, and the content also there also contains self-published blog posts that are not permitted in Wikipedia; it is not a reliable source as per WP:V#Sources, and the proper link to the NRO's own site is fine; it states clearly that the material is available to subscribers, and if Wikipedia were to post that URL you added, it would be conflicting with the commercial interest of the NR and NRO, which is forbidden in Wikipedia; see WP:Copyright#:Linking to copyrighted works and WP:Copyright#Copyright violations and the templates for copyright-violating links. Search: "Template:Copy-vio" and you will find the related policies. If you keep inserting it, I will have to keep removing it, and there is no violation of WP:3RR for removing copyright violations of this kind. But if you keep adding it after this (2nd warning if one counts my editing summary), you will become subject to WP:3RR and possibly be blocked by administrators. --NYScholar (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

:See also Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Repeated copyright violations. I've posted a copy of the above message to you also in Talk:Bibliography for Harold Pinter, as directed by Wikipedia policy. --NYScholar (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The editor NYScholar is incorrect, as usual. S/he is just another ownership-taking fake.

Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:|The discussion is about the topic :{{{1}}}.}} Thank you. MastCell ^Talk 04:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to return to productive editing after this block expires. However, in future you should always follow our dispute resolution guidelines rather than continuing to revert other editors. Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've re-started this 24 hour block per our policy on block evasion. Please don't continue to edit war. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• For engaging in further blockable behaviour while evading this block, I am increasing you block duration to 48 hours, starting now. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read the instructions carefully at Wikipedia:RFC#Instructions and do not edit {{tl|Rfctag}} again. You are supposed to place the Rfctag on the actual page where you want the discussion to take place, not edit the Rfctag itself. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your recent edits to Zidovudine, as they do not satisfy our sourcing requirements. Please review WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. A California website is not a reliable source for claims of medication side effects. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

:Please discuss your edits on the talk page. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I offer the following advice to both of you:

25px You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war{{#if:Zidovudine| according to the reverts you have made on :Zidovudine}}. 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. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}

Although I am myself an admin, I'm engaging in content revision & talk discussion, so I am recused of taking admin action - but edit waring like this is not good process, and risks action by an uninvolved admin. Engage in talk page discussion, and seek view of the relevant projects (WP:MED and WP:PHARM). David Ruben ^Talk 01:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

KeepCalm can always be relied on for patent dishonesty and lack of integrity. He writes above: "A California website is not a reliable source for claims of medication side effects." Actually the "California website" is the official Proposition 65 website of the state of California, and the point of including in the article (under History) the Prop 65 listing of AZT as carcinogenic is simply that it is noteworthy in and of itself, quite apart from the science. The AZT article is worthless and virtually readerless because of shills like KeepCalm and MastCell -- yet another pharmaceutical hack. Eye.earth (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that you are posting information from the "California Environmental Protection Agency" about some chemical compounds being listed there as carcinogenic. This information is questionable notability, in part because Wikipedia serves many, many different people, including most that may not be terribly interested in the rules of a particular state in a particular country. When planning to post similar information in multiple articles, it is a good idea to communicate your editing plans at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry and try to get some feedback. In my opinion, the information is not notable, especially in light of the MSDS that is linked on every article on chemical compounds. Thanks,--Smokefoot (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

How utterly bizarre. He writes "This information is questionable notability, in part because Wikipedia serves many, many different people, including most that may not be terribly interested in the rules of a particular state in a particular country." Actually its wide readership is the primary reason for including the listing. Wikipedia is supposed to be an online encyclopedia. That some of its readers may not be "terribly interested" in Prop 65s listing doesn't justify excluding it. It is simply a fact that California has officially listed AZT as carcinogenic. To say that such a listing is non-notable is very questionable, and looks very much like censorship. We may infer that SmokeFoot has a professional interest to defend, exactly like the shills KeepCalm and MastCell. Eye.earth (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

:Please do your best to comment on content, rather than the contributor. It's certainly possible that everyone you encounter on Wikipedia is part of a pharmaceutical/industrial conspiracy to poison humanity. However, it seems at least as likely that people are reacting to you in good faith, and that your abrasive approach is to blame for the universally negative reaction to your proposed edits across a wide range of topics. MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've started another thread on your behavior at the Administrator's noticeboard. Cheers, CP 20:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svgAn editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of centenarians. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of centenarians (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)