Hi,

I'm not sure if you are aware of it or not, but wikipedia does have Conflict of Interest guidelines, which might be germane in your editing of BHRT articles. That being said, I think BHRT is a load of crap, and have added your webpage to the external links section of the T.S. Wiley and BHRT. Fortunately, we're still allowed to edit pages we think are a load of crap. Anyway, if anyone gives you grief over the editing of the pages, I offer my services as an intermediary to skirt the guidelines :)

--WLU 13:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My only interest in this matter—after witnessing the behavior of Wiley and her husband (Nraden), which I won't go into here—is that the full story be told, not just pro-Wiley propaganda. It earns me nothing, and indeed it costs me time and money.

--Debv 18:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem that's why I've got a watch list! To be clear, you are allowed to edit the page, you just aren't really allowed to cite wileywatch.com (or whatever). If you have other sources which are independent of your own website, those are allowable. I'm still in the midst of editing the page by the way. WLU 00:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes I understand that. But if I'd done the cleanup, it would have been pouring fuel on a fire. Thanks again.--Debv

Please read WP:TALK before modifying talk pages beyond adding your own text. It is considered bad form to remove anything other than blatant vandalism or personal attacks from talk pages, irrespective of whether you agree with it or not. The Times review of the book is a legit source of information and counts as a reliable source. I have re-added the information to the talk page, if you wish to discuss whether the link should be placed on the main page, please do so. WLU 12:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction -- my mistake. --Debv 17:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about why you added the reports of adverse effects from the Wiley Protocol to Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy but deleted the same material from T. S. Wiley. As I argue on Talk:T. S. Wiley, the material presented is not challenged by any party in this controversy, and therefore is consistent with Wikipedia policy. Please discuss. (User:Debv)

Hi,

The T.S. Wiley page should discuss the person, T.S. Wiley - who she is, what she's done, etc. Criticisms of her qualifications are appropriate there, though criticisms of BHRT are not. The protocol exists separate from the person - T.S. Wiley is not the same thing as BHRT. However, criticisms of BHRT is appropriate for the BHRT article, as it directly relates to the page itself. You could probably have a short section (more like a sentence) on the BHRT page discussing how the originator of the protocol is unqualified, but you shoudn't be discussing Wiley at length there.

Of course, it's always possible that I just forgot, or changed my mind - I think my edits to the pages are several days apart at least, and I don't have a master plan on what to put where, I just go with what makes sense to me at the time. It's a terrible error to assume that Wikipedia and it's editors are anything other than a lurching Frankenstein's monster, hastily cobbled together from the jagged assemblages of individual editor's lives and time, held together by whims and edit summaries like electronic neck bolts :)

WLU 20:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new page, Wiley protocol, which should be used to directly address that particular type of BHRT, rather than using either Wiley's own page, or the BHRT page. Thought you'd be interested. WLU 19:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've actually been intending to make that change. Debv 19:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a 'head's up', you may want to read up on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy. I have advised Nraden to do the same, and it's handy to be forewarned. I am not certain if he will pursue dispute resolution at all, or if he does so, it will be against myself or you (as we are the two who seem to butt heads with him the most) but it isn't much of a deductive leap to expect one of us to have to deal with it. WLU 00:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah I saw that earlier. He's certainly free to pursue his grievances. --Debv 02:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Wiley protocol, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

Accounts used solely for blatant self-promotion may be blocked indefinitely without further warning.

For more details, please read the Conflict of Interest guideline. Thank you. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 12:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. It appears you have not followed this policy at Wiley protocol. Please always observe our core policies. Thank you. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 12:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you have a web site attacking Dr. Wiley. Whether or not your points are legitimate, I think you are too close to this situation to edit neutrally. I request that you make your contributions on the article talk page only, and let other editors decide whether the material belongs in the article or not. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 12:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the work you are doing and I understand that editors such as yourself don't have the time to investigate in depth the myriad of issues that you are confronted with. The fact that you refer to T.S. Wiley as a doctor testifies to the magnitude of the workload, and I don't begrudge you the mistake. My mistake lay in assuming that my edits would and could be assessed purely on their own merits. It was naive of me, and that's why I've agreed to step back from this. --Debv 05:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions are based on their own merits, subject to restrictions of the five pillars. You are still very welcome to add to the talk page discussion, and if you have reliable sources of information, you are most welcome to post them. Comments and suggestions on the accuracy and wording of text on the main page are also welcome. Even outright editing would probably be acceptable (I'm not sure as I haven't read the COI policy), as long as it was neutral and verifiable (the problem being, your relationship to the subject discourages good faith and enhances the scrutiny placed upon your edits). If you have anything that documents an investigation of the WP, the best way to contribute would be to post the documentation on the talk page, then alert one of the other regular contributors to the page (like myself. I'll add it to my to do list. Which only lengthens :) In fact, I would encourage you to submit these sources to the talk page for inclusion on the main page. WLU 17:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I moved your edit up assuming that you're replying to my response to Jehochman, not coelacan.)

You say that one's contributions are based on their own merits (subject to the five pillars). I'm not so sure, and perhaps this presumption led me to act too boldly. I certainly expected that my edits would receive greater scrutiny. I was prepared for it and welcomed it. I did not expect that my edits would be reverted only on the basis that I'm (openly) COI, without even perfunctory scrutiny, and that my requests for explanation and justification would be all but ignored.

It's just a reality to be acknowledged: Policies and guidelines are enforced via semi-structured vigilantism. It's human nature operating in a maturing system, and whatever the faults, it's better than anarchy. (And don't get me wrong. I really admire that Wikipedia works so well.)

Whatever the case may be, I think it's preferable for Nraden, KristinGabriel, and I confine our (nontrivial) edits to the talk pages. --Debv 08:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent idea. You should follow it, even if the others don't, so that you can take the moral high ground. If other editors violate COI, open a case at WP:COI/N and we will look into it. This is much better than engaging in an edit war! Jehochman ^Talk 12:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, the greatest problem is people putting things up that they know but can't source. If you've got a reliable source, the info should stay up or at least be modified. But keep adding info and contributing, we always need more serious contributors. WLU 00:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, do you take issue with your last name being used at User talk:Nraden? I can't tell if you've used it on Wikipedia before. ··coelacan 09:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. Thank you. --Debv 03:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Regarding your recent edit to Nraden's talk page, though user talk pages do have some limitations and guidelines, Nraden is within his rights to remove any comments, though archiving is preferred (see here). The diff of the removal is still present in the page history and therefore not lost. Also see here for more guidelines. Generally editing another's user talk page beyond providing information or replies is a no-no and a violation of basic courtesy (though there's not an official policy).

WLU 20:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I know. --Debv 04:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the above discussion, in which your name is mentioned. You are welcome to add your own comments there. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been watching the discussion. Debv (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. WLU (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what my grandfather from Russia taught me - those who love us, love us. Those who don't, may the good lord turn their hearts. But if he can't turn their hearts, he should turn their ankles so we can recognize them by their limp.

I hope you have a happy and healthy new year. And don't forget to soak your ankle. Neil Raden (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you added the above to Wiley Watch, presumably because you interpretted it as an insult, or at least something you could mock. Pity. I thought that for one day of the year we could lay down our weapons and just be civil. I guess I was wrong. Neil Raden (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That exact same statement could be made about not baiting someone on their talk page. You should both realize that the best way to respond to cheap shots and jibes is not to respond with more, or criticisms. It's to be like grown-ups and just ignore it. WLU (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with you people? I was merely trying to add a little levity to an ugly situation and pass on holiday greetings, even if if she does hate my guts. I know debv is never going to "love" me, that's the sore ankle metaphor. Be she is human, I think, and someone I'm engaged with, so I sent my greetings. Where's your holiday spirit? Neil Raden (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, could be me being a douche. Apologies. WLU (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take it wishing somebody maimed isn't considered a holiday greeting in your culture. Well, not mine either. Debv (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Russians generally have an interesting sense of humour. I'd just assume good faith that it's legit. Or let it drop. Well, not me, I never let anything drop, I worry at things like a dog with a rat. But anyway, there's no point in picking scabs. It's hard enough communicating via text, a horribly optimistic AGF policy is everyone's best bet. WLU (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's an old Irish curse. FWIW. Debv (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Debv,

You may find the following template useful - it's for edits to pages that the requesting editor can't edit because of a conflict of interest. This way you don't have to wait for me to edit the page, and I don't have to feel guilty about not doing it. In addition, it should take you out of the rather limited group of editors you have encountered to date, which will probably be good for all involved. I think it's used by pasting it into a section on the mainspace article's talk page, possibly your talk page (but I'd guess the former). I would obviously also include a rational for why the edit should be made and any sources to justify the edit. Paste the text you see on the page, not the text that appears in the edit pane (that will link to the template, but won't actually use it).

{{request edit}}

WLU (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]