---

TALKPAGE ARCHIVE 1 (2007-2009 INCLUSIVE)

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Tekaphor! Thanks for the contributions over on the Chronic fatigue syndrome article. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

• Take a look at the New contributors' help page, the Wikipedia Tutorial and the Manual of Style, and If you still need any help, you can always post your question at the Help Desk.
• When you have time, please peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia and Assume good faith, but please keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
• Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
• Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~. Best of luck, Tekaphor, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 16:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - Tekaphor 09:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I notice you've been doing some good work on chronic fatigue syndrome. At the moment the article reflects the very fragmented understanding of this condition in the medical research community, with little consensus. I have not made any major edits to that article, but I strongly feel that work is needed. I recently exchanged some views with Avb (talk · contribs), and it seems Thedreamdied (talk · contribs) and Sciencewatcher (talk · contribs) are also trying to take the article to another level. Obviously this is an emotional debate, and there is a lively online community that clearly does not accept certain hypotheses without a fight. I'll repeat here the points that I made to Avb:[1]

• CFS is poorly defined. The systems that are in place (Oxford, Fukuda, Holmes, etc) are perceived as being inadequate.
• There is no gold standard in the diagnosis of CFS. The complete lack of a useful diagnostic modality makes it almost impossible to generate a clinically homogenous population for an intervention (or even "natural history" trial).
• There is a wide gap between what patients feel and what doctors can understand.
• There are various schools of thought as to the pathogenesis. Some favour a psychiatric paradigm, while others find explanations in virology, autoimmune disease, endocrine causes and toxicology. These schools of thought are not well-defined, with members of the "psychiatric school" not excluding an organic cause and vice versa. I personally find myself in agreement with a hybrid approach (mental maladaption to a physical cause), but remain open-minded as to new perspectives.
• There are a lot of people - probably too many - who claim they have found the cause of CFS (think of HHV6 and its incessant hype).

I'd love to hear your views on this, and am quite interested in generating some sort of a framework to make that article top-notch. JFW | T@lk 15:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

-

Hi JFW. Thanks for your appreciation. I agree with all your points and that more work is needed on the article, although I am somewhat unsure about how exactly to significantly improve it. It may not currently be optimal, but until we have more definitive results from researchers, perhaps the best thing we can do for now is better represent these inadequacies/controversies/unknowns and improve the article in terms of wikipedia standards. I do have the following improvements or suggestions in mind though:

• merging the diagnosis and symptom sections, with more comparative details about the different criterias (perhaps also with the section on "post-exertional symptom exacerbation" being moved as a symptom under the Canadian criteria) ...
• a section on the overlap with other etiologies to rule out, plus a separate descriptive list on a another page as Thedreamdied suggests ...
• upgrading/including the "controversies" section with more details about the "psychological vs physiological" debate (maybe it could be renamed too) ...
• improving the references I have added (most are from news websites).

I would like to see some resolution between both "sides". I used to think CFS was mostly psychological but now I currently view it as mostly physiological, with a hybrid explanation seeming most likely. So while I tend to keep a critical eye on people's attempts at promoting ME/CFS as mostly psychological, I remain quite interested in this aspect and suspect it does play a secondary causal role. Similar to your example of mental maladaption to a physical cause, I think that the physical cause is some type of initial subtle biological weakness that snowballs when combined with certain stressors (psychological or otherwise), and that the mental maladaption goes hand in hand (may be partially caused or worsened by the biological weakness but may also contribute to it, hence the "snowballing"). - Tekaphor 10:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to symptoms, we need a solid reference for each symptom. After all, it could be that a CFS patient has fatigue but also suffers from hay fever. It is tempting to attribute the hay fever to "immune dysfunction", ignoring the fact that 1/3 of the population suffers from this. One then needs to prove that it is more common in CFS patients. (This is just an example.)

Other syndromes to rule out: this is very much dependent on one's POV. The CDC list is deliberately short, but there are plenty of CFS message boards that will insist that every CFS patient should be tested for Pizza Disease (Margueritosis), while this is pointless of medical grounds apart from the fact that a small group of Margueritosis patients will occasionally feel tired. Do you want the short list (recommended by professional organisations) or the long list (pushed by patients' groups). Note that Margueritosis is a fictional diagnostic entity.

Controversies: it would be nice to have a good reference for this section.

References: give me a list of references to chase. This is usually easy. Use the name of the first author and the year (and the journal) and feed it into PubMed. I usually get it quickly. JFW | T@lk 08:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You made a few more good suggestions. So far I have replaced the several news site references in that section with those from PubMed. I also divided the section up into relevant subsections and slightly reworded some of the text. - Tekaphor 06:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done on your recent contributions, such as the Occ Med (London) citation on the epidemiology. Could you suggest (on the article's talkpage) which sections could be trimmed or removed? JFW | T@lk 14:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've noticed you recently made a contribution or regularly contribute to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. I recently nominated it as the Wikipedia:Improvement Drive. I feel that it needs urgent improvement, and if you agree please vote at the Improvement Drive project page. Thanks! Thedreamdied 02:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If you activated your Wikipedia email I could send you a message. JFW | T@lk 21:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. - Tekaphor 10:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Placed some comment on your CFS research page. Would be interested in your comment on article i attempted to post y'day Jagra

NCurse _work 17:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tekaphor, a certain editor is reverting edits regarding anti-oxidants in CFS on spurious grounds. Firstly as unreliable source here which I had overturned on the WP RSN here, and now as Fringe theory, which I sure could be easily overturned. Rather than continue his edit war I have posted a Discussion on anti-oxidants and seek a consensus on the Talk page for an replacement section. Jagra 03:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You may find this interesting [`http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/564867?src=rss] Sleep deprivation and emotional instability "This is the first set of experiments that demonstrate that even healthy people's brains mimic certain pathological psychiatric patterns when deprived of sleep." How is this for attitude on CFS, as if there were not enough problems? Seasons Regards Jagra (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jagra, interesting article, and rather obvious too!

You might be interested in this news article, "Researchers Reverse Effects Of Sleep Deprivation".

Belated seasons regards - Tekaphor (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tekaphor.

Thought you might want to check this out

https://online.sagepub.com/cgi/register?registration=FTNov2007-34

You can get free access to all their journals (and there is a lot of them) until end of November. I am currently working my way through them. (A tip: search for "chronic fatigue", not "chronic fatigue syndrome", you get a bit more chaff, but also a broader and more interesting range of results.)

Two particularly interesting studies (of considerable relevance to the CFS article discussions) that I have found so far are:

Retrospective Measurement of Childhood Sexual Abuse: A Review of Instruments. Hulme PA, 2004. Complete abstract:

In this comprehensive review of retrospective childhood sexual abuse (CSA) instruments, instruments from studies published between 1986 and 2001 are examined according to administration method, number and specificity of questions, CSA operational definitions, psychometric properties, and the use of scales. It was found that both self-administered and interview instruments range from the vagueness of a single question to the preciseness of multiple, specific questions. Furthermore, the review demonstrated that CSA instruments generally lack standardization. Many are developed for one time use and others modified when reused. Descriptive CSA instruments have been preferred by researchers and primarily used to measure CSA dichotomously. However, little consensus exists as to how to operationally define CSA. One positive trend is the development of scales that measure CSA as an interval-level variable, allowing for more extensive psychometric data to be collected.

Daily physical activities of patients with chronic pain or fatigue versus asymptomatic controls. A systematic review. van Weering M, et al, 2007. From the abstract:

Conclusions: Results reported in the literature with respect to the activity level of patients with chronic pain or fatigue compared with controls were too heterogeneous to give sufficient evidence and were not conclusive.

Some food for thought.

Catch you later.

Bricker 04:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm just about to fix the pubmed id, just leave it for a minute as I keep hitting against an edit conflict with you. WLU (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

the problem is it should be pmid = 23536653; that is, it should be lower case (may not matter) and an equal sign. You forgot the equal sign. WLU (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I eventually figured it out, a simple mistake! From previous experience, the upper case doesn't matter. Good work on moving the study to a more appropriate place, I wasn't really sure where it should have gone so I just added it where similar studies were mentioned. Regards - Tekaphor (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In the rush of events, both on Wikipedia and in my personal life, I think I forgot to acknowledge properly your work on the problems with the patient selection criteria in the Issues with the definitions/criteria section. Much appreciated.

Bricker (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The work on splitting the main article brought to attention the need for a place for coordination as well as a lot of outlying articles in need of attention by the same community of editors.

While there is no official consensus on a name and not yet a permanent location, there is a project page presently stashed at: User:Strangelv/MEproject. Thank you for your work and consideration. -- Strangelv (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. - Tekaphor (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Tekaphor, before you continue, be advised that half a dozen patients (that I know of) have been permabanned from Wikipedia for speaking up in a similar manner. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. - Tekaphor (talk) 06:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely true. Those half a dozen activists (some of whom not patients) plastered the article with horrible biased junk, and repeated this until they got banned. Others posted rant after rant on the talkpage (and on numerous other pages) and got banned when the pitch became deafening.

To repeat my message from the talkpage: the page has previously been blanked by Jimbo and I have set myself the thankless task of ensuring that no WP:BLP violations take place. Given your previous reasonable work on the CFS main article I should imagine that reasonable edits to the biography will be judged on their merits. You are entirely at liberty to make suggestions to make the article less "sanitised". JFW | T@lk 11:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:WLU. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tekaphor,

Could you do me a favour (unless you've already done so somewhere else)? Could you compile a list of the sources that support the idea that ME is not the same thing as CFS? I have no objection to an ME page, if it is supported as a separate clinical entity. My problem is that currently there does not seem to be such a support. Other language sources are allowable, but unfortunately they pretty much have to be mainstream medical journals, major governing bodies and other sources that are suitable for medical conditions (see WP:MEDRS if you're not already familiar with the guideline). You might also want to see WP:UNDUE for some other qualifications - the idea must be supported by at least a substantial minority of clinicians and researchers and it is very difficult to establish what exactly constitutes a substantial minority. Wikipedia is somewhat biased against non-clinical and non-expert opinions by virtue of the emphasis placed on reliable sources, but there is still a place for advocacy groups and their opinions. Without support from medical sources however, it becomes a question of "X said ME is different from CFS because" rather than "This is how ME and CFS are different."

If the list already exists somewhere, if you could link me to it on my talk page I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi WLU. This is not something I have really looked into enough to the point of actually preparing text. The closest would have been looking into the issues with the CFS definitions, which is obviously related but not fully relevant to the naming issue. I'm just not "passionate" about ME advocacy like Guido is, and neither am I as familiar with it as he seems to be. Personally, I'm not convinced that ME and CFS are totally distinct, but I still have to research it more. ME advocates have raised some important points, and I believe that the primary problem is with the ME/CFS definitions and related criteria. I won't be able to demonstrate that the "majority of scholarly opinion" classify them as distinct, simply because (as you have also noticed) that doesn't seem true. As for finding sources for a "significant minority", I'll see what I can do, it might take a while though. As a side note; advocates that use terms like "ME/CFS" etc aren't necessarily promoting equivalency of the terms, but could be rather expressing an "uneasy compromise" or even multiple advocacy for several illnesses (eg, ME/CFS/FM/IBS). - Tekaphor (TALK) 10:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This seems to be my understanding as well - people don't know if they're different so they use both as a compromise but most researchers, scholars and clinicians use CFS as their main choice. The main reason I asked you was because I was concerned there were prominent sources and I was just unable to find them. If you turn up some sources, I'd be happy to review and suggest areas for integration - most would probably be in the article on controversies, perhaps naming, with a short mention in the main article. Since they would be talking about the social reality of CFS and CFS patients, they aren't bound by WP:MEDRS meaning we can use lower-reliability sources, but we'd still need something beyond (for example) blogs and web fora. Position statements signed by a prominent proponent or board of directors of a large agency would work.

Incidentally, if you put a redirect from your user page to your talk page, you'll turn all your redlinks blue without having to write anything about yourself. Most redlinked users don't get taken as seriously, it may spare you having to 'prove' repeatedly that you know what you're talking about. It's a pretty common choice by many editors. You'd just have to paste:

#REDIRECT [[User talk:Tekaphor]]

Onto the page. In case you were interested, I'm a bit of a busybody for stuff like that. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 11:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I have recently considered creating the main userpage and have previously drafted one, so I'll just use that. As for the sources, I'll let you know. Lately I have been looking into Leonard Jason's work, which raises several issues about the CFS criteria etc, but this doesn't seem to insist on distinctly separate illnesses. - Tekaphor (TALK) 12:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tekaphor,

Because Guido has a history of deleting my comments on his talk page, here is a response to your comment about the duration of the block (more for your education than any real weight in the argument). A month may be excessive, but per the policy the block should be longer than the previous duration of one week. In addition, as you can see from the comments in his block log here, it's not just 3RR, it's incivility, conflict of interest and apparently threats. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 14:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi WLU. Thanks for letting me know, Guido shouldn't have removed your comment. I'm not deeply involved in the whole issue (with Guido's disciplinary action), but after seeing that my role in the related dispute at the CFS talkpage was mentioned as a position, I thought I should at least make a comment on the whole issue. - Tekaphor (TALK) 15:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

As we're getting a bit off-topic I thought I'd just finish this discussion here...

From what I see, looking at the full-text, they determined whether or not a patient's illness was "caused" by psychiatric factors based purely on whether they had an Axis I diagnosis. Although I admit that the text isn't very clear on exactly how they did the grouping, so this may be incorrect. Can you confirm? As for the neurasthenia, Wessely is saying that ME and neurasthenia are the same illness. He isn't saying that ME "doesn't exist" - that would imply that neurasthenia doesn't exist, and doesn't make sense. But this is what his opponents are saying. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sciencewatcher. Yeah, it was getting off-topic, I almost posted it on your talkpage; thanks for replying. It seems to me they assumed that the patient's fatigue was caused by an Axis I diagnosis; "The third group comprised 33 persons with a psychiatric explanation for their chronic fatigue illness. For example, of this group, 19 individuals were diagnosed with melancholic depression." It doesn't look like the "CF-psychiatric" participants received a medical examination, so I understand your objection; there is the potential to miss undiagnosed disease (since the interview should have considered known disease). Perhaps you could contact L Jason and ask more details. My main response about neurasthenia will eventually be on the Simon Wessely talkpage, I've already typed/drafted it but I didn't want to duplicate here.

Saying that ME is a "belief" is obviously going to be interpreted as overall dismissal to people who accept the existence of the defined ME disease process. Wessely posits the symptoms as "real" in that the patient is experiencing them ("functional" rather than organic) but that ME (as a disease process) doesn't exist. However, even imagination is real in the sense that it is being experienced, so using the word "real" doesn't necessarily ease peoples' concerns, especially with the emphasis on the role of abnormal "beliefs", "cognitions", "symptom hypervigilance", "hypochondriasis" etc. Similar themes have been routinely directed towards medical uncertainty for the last century, and all of the historic accusations directed towards neurasthenics have been revived towards CFS patients, who are often viewed as a neurotic scourge. Some CFS patients apparently perceive mental illness as somehow less real or severe, obviously because their symptoms have been constantly downplayed or ignored by others for that exact same reason. So now we've got a royal recipe for a climate of doubt towards the "reality" of "unexplained" physical symptoms. While theoretical misinterpretation is possible, the current reality is that we can't expect the average patient to swallow all these subtle ideal differences as meaningful when it's resulting in a similar outcome. The overall point is, the issue is not black and white, it's important to consider the context from both "sides".

_Tekaphor (TALK) 13:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Passing through, that's a remarkably good summary of the problem. I am a depressive; depression is as real as you like, the distinction between physical and psychiatric is IMO a false one as it almost certainly results from subtle chemical imbalances. In my brief exchanges with Wessely as a result of the earlier issues with his articles and One-Click I gained the strong impression that he sees CFS in much the same way; his focus on psychiatric palliatives is a simple matter of expedience - looking for things that will alleviate suffering and ways to understand the mechanism by which that works. He seems to me to be sincere in trying to help people, which of course would apply equally whether he is "wrong" or "right", even assuming that there is any one value of "wrong" or "right" in context. We might even be looking at more than one condition with very similar symptoms, for all I know. Anyway, nice summary (here and in your user subpages) and well done for maintaining equanimity in a heated area. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Guy, thanks for your compliments. As far as I can tell so far, Wessely isn't as "bad" as he is sometimes made out to be, and there could be room for semantic misinterpretation of his work; on the other hand, legitimate and important concerns are being raised about the psychosocial and cognitive behavioural approaches. As you implied, sincerity is independent of accuracy. I view the issue as being about the degree of which factor X or Y plays a role in some aspects or cases of CFS, rather than simply being about right or wrong about the entire subject (as it is often simplistically portrayed). However, I'm also cautious about arriving at a false middle ground with CFS; ignoring the mind-body problem doesn't necessarily make it go away, and the grey-area in between probably isn't homogenous. The next decade will be interesting. I understand your point about depression and you won't hear any arguments from me against the reality of it and any biological correlates. - Tekaphor (TALK) 02:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tek, regarding "The Independent" article [2] and Wesseley's comment "They don't think like that in France and they don't have the same outcomes. It is how you respond to symptoms that determines the outcome.

He described how a French physician from Lyon who spent a sabbatical in the UK was astonished at the sight of children with chronic fatigue in wheelchairs at Great Ormond Street hospital. 'He returned to Paris and wrote an article about how there was just no equivalent in France.'"

This more of Wesseley's tendency towards overgeneralisation. A simple search of "CFS France" reveals CFS does exist in France, and that biological research is being conducted and confirming the biological pathophysiology of CFS. see [3]

"Conclusions. The response of CFS patients to incremental exercise associates a lengthened and accentuated oxidative stress together with marked alterations of the muscle membrane excitability. These two objective signs of muscle dysfunction are sufficient to explain muscle pain and postexertional malaise reported by our patients." Kcd1961 (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kcd. Thanks for commenting. You're right. I wasn't endorsing Wessely's statements, merely reporting them. Personally, my views of Wessely's statements aren't particularly supportive; I can understand how such "factors" could exist to some relatively minor degree, but to imply that they are generally the main or sole issue in ME/CFS is going way too far and suggests a lack of understanding about the nature of the illness, especially when diluting the criteria and lumping it in with a broader range of illnesses. - Tekaphor (TALK) 03:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, since you have previously shown an interest in the topic of CFS, this is to inform you that I have started an attempt to resolve a long list of existing disputes on Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome. You are welcome to participate. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Guido. I'll have a look, but it's unlikely I'll be of much assistance; it's difficult to keep up with all the recent activity. - Tekaphor (TALK) 09:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Guido den Broeder/Wikipedia, the Social Experiment - travb (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll leave a comment. - Tekaphor (TALK) 02:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You'd probably be interested to note Wikipedia:ANI#Improper_use_of_MfD_page.3F. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Guido was rapidly banned and I was too late to comment (not that it would have made a difference). I view Guido's so-called "disruptive editing" as mainly a responsive symptom of his frustration at what happens at the ME/CFS articles, and his attempt to balance things out. If this was addressed, there probably would have been less trouble. - Tekaphor (TALK) 02:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Shame on you Tekaphor for your nasty words to me, i was expecting better from you then from Guido. I am sorry i will always say when people are activisits and pushing activist agenda, and it is wierd to me Guido gets banned and all of sudden you, Jagra, Weller, Ward20 are all editing regular again. I do not think you are Guido, i think some of them are or they are getting contact from him. It is sad you all do not understand, WP follow medical cons, not activists opinions. Pls be civil, thx. RetroS1mone talk 04:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't intend to offend anyone or be nasty; if I wanted to insult you, I would be far more colourful. Using "WTF?" best summarized how I viewed the situation. Don't relegate arguments, revert edits, or ignore their validity merely because you suspect someone has an "agenda". The often condescending manner in which you respond without really explaining the problem in detail hasn't been helpful either; I doubt this is how you'd want to be treated if accused of having a "psychologising" agenda or whatever. If you are talking about the word "bigotry"; this was due to the observations of knee-jerk discrimination and intolerance towards others targeted by your speculation. If you are talking about the word "hypocracy", likewise, a statement about double-standards in citing WP:RULES since you regularly charge others with violating policy (usually WP:MEDRS) but seem to do the same yourself.

MEDRS isn't Wikipedia's only policy and other rules specify we should mention uncertainty/controversy and present conflicting perspectives fairly. Obviously such sources have to be "reliable", but you've inappropriately reverted such caveats as "opinion" despite the fact they came from a reliable secondary source and worded by the authors as a "fundamental problem". You've also rejected mentioning any conflicting perspectives whatsoever; the PACE trial identifier simply notes that patient group surveys have reported adverse effects, thats a simple 7 word sentence describing a significant minority viewpoint among several other paragraphs about CBT.

As for the other editors you mentioned, sounds like you've got a conspiracy theory brewing! - Tekaphor (TALK) 01:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK sorry Tekaphor may be i am to strong about it, but i just thought strange, Guido gets banned and sudden Jagra and Ward20 are back full time. It is obvious you Jagra and Ward20 co-ordinated with Guido and Bricker and strangelv and people in the past are you saying you did not?? You made the subarticles together and your wroking together is in your talk page above! It is not wrong to work together in block like that, I am just saying, you do not make consensus on medical articles by voting with people you agree with, medical articles are follow medical sources. I know medrs is not only guideline at WP. But Med articles have to have medrs. I know you and the ME/CFS group that edited the subpages do not like the CBT, i read your comments on Bricker and Jagra discussion. It is ok you do not like the CBT you can have any opinion you want having. It is also not matter to WP, it uses sources not opinions. The Cochrane uses three RCT for one number, four for other estimate. I see you and Weller and other people always pick the lower number, 40 not 48 to report. There is no rule, you can't report RCTs that are in the Cochrane, I put two that are upper range of estimate. You can put the lower range when you want. I put the full recovery because that is different subject, that is 100 people, and it is in high quality journal but not RCT, and I did not say it is. I have feeling, people are trying to conceal CBT effectiveness on page, it is not a conteroversial thing in med literature, so it should not be on CFS article.

OK second thing is, every medical article that is good has a section where they say, more research is needed or here is a drawback or what ever. You do not need report that every time you use medrs. You or another ME/CFS group editor picks out one source, one the conclusions they do not like and adds sentence or more about how bad the source is, that is undue. Does it make sense, Thx, RetroS1mone talk 07:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for a more involved discussion this time, and signs of compromise or tolerance. I think I've responded to most of the above allegations on the CFS talkpage recently, so I'll minimize repetition here. I'm still unconvinced by your claim that "good" medical articles only have caveats in a separate section about drawbacks; do you have any actual wiki-article examples? - Tekaphor (TALK) 08:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tekaphor some editors at Chronic fatigue syndrome have talked about banning me. That is a later step in a dispute process, but it can start with a request for comment about me and i think comments from outside are good. Here is the guidelines for an RfC when you are interested at that [4]. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 13:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Tek,

See WP:SILENCE, as well as WP:BRD. Put in the caveats on CBT yourself. If anyone objects or feels it is unreasonable, they'll revert, tag, or post a comment and a discussion can ensue. Consensus doesn't need to be perfect, and Retro, sciencewatcher and myself have supported sourced caveats. So go for it. If you'd rather get consensus first, draft the comments yourself, with sources, and put them on the talk page. Alert interested parties if you want a solid review. So long as you don't stray from what the sources say, based on my editing interactions with you I think you'll be OK. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've included this in my response on the CFS talkpage, but I'll say here that your optimism about "sourced caveats" seems to betray weeks of recent arguing about CBT, which included the automatic rejection of sourced caveats. So I'm not really in any rush to get involved. - Tekaphor (TALK) 03:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As nobody else seems to want to do it, I'm going to have a go at tidying up all the CBT stuff in the article. You said you had a list of caveats somewhere on your page - can you point me to them? Also, does anyone have the full-text for "Interventions for the treatment, management and rehabilitation of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: an updated systematic review" (PMID 17021301)? I have all the other major reviews, but I'm missing this one and I'd really like to read through them all before doing any major changes. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The URL I have for PMID 17021301 is [5] but it doesn't seem to be working for me right now. The URL to the table I mentioned on my userpage is [6] (towards the bottom if the navigation hook in the URL didn't work). I just added some more information on it; obviously the direct quotes need to be summarized. - Tekaphor (TALK) 03:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. The link is working now and I got it. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Also: have you got the full-text of the Cochrane study for CBT? --sciencewatcher (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I downloaded my copy from this pro "ME is not CFS" blogger: niceguidelines — Cochrane Review of CBT. This isn't an endorsement of the content of the blog content BTW. :-) TerryE (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I got my copy from the full-text URL [7] on PubMed. Don't be fooled as I initially was, it's freely accessible, despite not saying "free" in the icon). - Tekaphor (TALK) 09:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tek that is some very interesitng you and Ward20 have same day to come back on Wikipedia after a long break, hmmm is there some thing you want to say should we have checkuser?? Just kidding welcome back!! RetroS1mone talk 03:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha. You really do love your cabal hypothesis. "Checkuser" all you want, baybee! - Tekaphor (TALK) 12:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a joke, and pls do not call me baybee that is very sexist and shows alot about you. RetroS1mone talk 12:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps "baybee" was just continuing the joke. :-) Yeah, I really should be banned for using such a badboy word on the internet. - Tekaphor (TALK) 12:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Re [8]. I presume I'm the opposing party. I disagree with your subjective judgement, but wrt the objective part, I don't think I broke 3RR. Do you really think I did? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Yeah. I'm no expert on Wikipedian guidelines so I could be wrong, but as I understand it, 3RR is summarized as "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances." The logs reveal 3 reverts on Global warming within 3 hours:

• 18:44, 31 May 2009 William M. Connolley (rv: read the ref and stop fiddling)
• 19:50, 31 May 2009 William M. Connolley (rv: stop fiddling: last century is fine)
• 21:08, 31 May 2009 William M. Connolley (rv: please stop pratting around)

As far as I can tell, Guido's edits aren't covered by the listed exceptions at WP:3RR. - Tekaphor (TALK) 11:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeeees. So as you've just noticed, that is 3 reverts which isn't more than 3 reverts. I request that you note your error on the arbcomm notice board William M. Connolley (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, you're right, my mistake, will do. - Tekaphor (TALK) 11:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope to go live with User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/National Fibromyalgia Association within the next day or so. If anyone can expand a section, add a source, or corect a typo... please help out. Thanks, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a quick proof-read and spell-check, but I won't be able to offer more assistance than that. Regards - Tekaphor (TALK) 14:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Tekaphor. 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. Thank you. RetroS1mone talk 02:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Tekaphor, i mention you in ANI but i do not put your name at the top, you did not follow me to revert namespace edits like Ward20 and Robinhood70 and the IP vandal, i have respect for that. I am sorry it is so unpleasant but i do not like Ward20 and Robinhood and who ever the IP are just following me and harassing. RetroS1mone talk 02:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks, I've left a comment there. - Tekaphor (TALK) 07:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Strangely enough, just as RetroS1mone was naming a number of people in her recent ANI submission, I was preparing a collection of concerns for an RfC about her. I would like to invite you to edit or add to this list, which can be found here. After I've put it into proper RfC format (tomorrow, most likely) and people have had a chance to make their own contributions/edits, I will most likely submit it formally, depending on the outcome of the ANI submission. --RobinHood70 (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look. - Tekaphor (TALK) 08:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --RobinHood70 (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much ready to go. If you agree, please sign off in the appropriate part of the Users certifying the basis for this dispute section. --RobinHood70 (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I will be able to help with some examples too. I just need to check that I'm not introducing redundancies. - Tekaphor (TALK) 05:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of RetroS1mone (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RetroS1mone. -- RobinHood70 (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I just posted a large message on the discussion page.[9] - Tekaphor (TALK) 03:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you are into Podcasts, but if you are and want to listen to some interesting expert discussions on XMRV by way of general background, then you might be interested in Vincent Racaniello's TWiV 50 — XMRV offset ~30-55 mins and TWiV 55 — Mice lie, monkeys exaggerate offset ~3-28 mins. Prof Racaniello is a leading virologist and populariser of virology through his virology podcasts. The other key contributor in these discussions was Jason Rodriguez who is one of the post-doc virologists doing the XMRV/Prostate work (and incidentally not directly involved in the WIP XMRV/CFS study). I think that they give a pretty unbiased perspective on this work, which I found very interesting. I will very interested in what is published in these next 12-18 months :-) Regards Terry — TerryE (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks TerryE. - Tekaphor (TALK) 02:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Email me for a copy of PMID 11708672. Sam Weller (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

---