User talk:Keepcalmandcarryon

Hi. I suggest you to read WP:WELCOME

— Keepcalmandcarryon 76.194.235.52 (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC) (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thus spake SPAthustra! I will leave this here as a pluperfect illustration of a SPA editor. -Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also inform you that, AFAIK this edit of your [1] is a blanking of sourced data.

I invite you to please present your arguments for aforelinked edit at Talk:AIDS reappraisal. Maybe you have a point and there´s a good reason for that edit. Please: Explain yourself. Cheers. Randroide (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve this barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Great job with AIDS denialism OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Do you happen to have any connection to this thread, and the poster there by the name of keepcalmandcarryon? MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to know, because your edits here are pretty clear to removing the POV that AIDS denialism is scientifically based. The poster above was a bit unclear. Maybe it was your intention. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the star, no i do not have any connection to denialist websites. Sorry if I am amateurish with my edits, just learning this.Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan Vandalism

Please stop your vandalism of this article. You are clearly using it as retribution against me due to the AIDS Denialist dispute. I provided clear refs., to ALRA. The Kent Lib. article lists all three directors as 'Managers'.

If you persist in vandalising this article I will present the evidence to Wikipedia and request you be banned. Aimulti (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. I have contributed to the recent edits of your autobiography not as retribution for anything, but because your agenda-driven activities at AIDS denialism prompted me to examine your other edits. This article (and your behavior in general) does not meet the standards of Wikipedia, in my opinion. You are welcome to disagree with me. Cheers, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Keepcalm,

I have provided a scan on the disscussion page and ref. regarding ALRA. It shows the second prospectus credits and shows Mark Hanau was Chairman. I will reference ALL other points ASAP. I removed a couple until I can provide references. My contributions to Wikipedia are better referenced than (the general Wiki standard) and almost none of my contributions has ever been edited for that reason. (Examples. The history of CND, Committee of 100) I have had it with trying to talk sense regarding 'AIDS'. You can all enjoy your smears and one sided comment to your hearts content. Best wishes.Aimulti (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions often remain unedited for months or years. It's not necessarily evidence of good referencing. But I do agree that you seem to have made some well referenced contributions, for example on brothels. The best editing is generally done when you have some distance from your subject. And that is why Wikipedia discourages autobiography. Why not leave your contributions for someone else to write up? Surely you have some dag colleagues who could do it for you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added content to this page but have been very careful to be objective and did not include anything that I could not reference (to some degree). Yes, I could have a friend make the edits, but what would be the difference? It would be dishonest but if that is how it is done here, why not?

I know you hate my views on AIDS but that is no reason to subject my contributions to a standard that no one could meet. Almost every article would be deleted if such a standard was applied. I feel I made valid points regarding the limitations of EM but clearly this is an emotional topic and the response was in keeping with that. As it is pointless to fight such a strongly held prejudice I will simply try it ignore it and write on subjects that can be debated in a rational manner. I hold no hard feelings to you but simply ask that you act in a fair and balanced way and do not use Wikipedia to engage in a vendetta. Very best wishes.Aimulti (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding ALRA ref. Actually a school prospectus (distributed in the tens of thousands) IS A PUBLISHED DOCUMENT. The brochure was produced by ALRA and distributed by the school (as with any school prospectus). In this regard I have met the Wikipedia standard as I am sure you will agree. Aimulti (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I didn't mean you should write your own article and have someone else post it. That would be dishonest. But you could kindly ask someone to write about you. I don't see what the harm in that would be. They would have NPOV that you lack. As for the prospectus, whether it's acceptable as a source or not, being named as a Chairman in it doesn't equate with being the founder of the school. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A founder is a person who is at the very start of a project and plays a leading role in its inception. An Artistic Director is no more a founder than a Chairman of the Board. In this case Mark Hanau provided 100% of the start up capital. Aimulti (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had to revert

I had to revert here, and your edits to the POV cruft were good, but you're trying to make feces smell like a good fine wine. Randroide has no support in his cruft, so I think you were inadvertently supporting his cruft by improving the edits. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as I went along I realized that this is all covered elsewhere. Where did Randroide get "no consensus?" Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

You need to be made aware of this discussion at ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice note at User talk:Aimulti. Kudos. Toddst1 (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping busy

You're keeping busy, aren't you. Quite the walled garden of articles on AIDS denialism we've got here, eh? :) MastCell ^Talk 16:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. A fascinating place by any account. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at Matthias Rath. I've been thinking about looking at how his research is presented in the article, but much of it is hard to verify, appearing in the Commonwealth Handbook or Italian veterinary journals, so I appreciate your work there. I'm curious about the Iranian team which "supported" his findings, especially as I can't seem to find their article on PubMed. It's a tricky article, since there is a signficant, even mainstream view which considers Rath to be a harmful quack. On the other hand, we have to be careful with sourcing and tone, both by virtue of our site policies and the notoriously litigious nature of the article subject. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly. Please let me know if I get carried away with sourcing and tone at any time. The Veterinaria Italiana article, IMHO, does not support Rath's team's statement about reduction of viral replication, since the assay involved does not distinguish between effects on virus itself and modulation of the immune system. I find the entire Vet Ital article to be curious. The supplement seems to work wonders for the birds at three days post-infection and -treatment (10 days of age), yet just four days later (the experimental end point), the treated birds seem to be as sick as (or sicker than) the untreated birds in several categories. More importantly, it appears that at 14 days, 19/20 (Control), 17/20 (infected), and 14/20 (infected, treated) birds are alive. No mention is made of what happened to the missing birds, nor do the authors speculate about the apparent doubling of mortality in treated birds. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Iranian article is an opinion article, not independent experimental confirmation. I moved the claim to talk since I'm not sure how to handle it. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting about the birds. You'd think the reviewers might have caught on, no? But just goes to show that clinical research is all about choosing your endpoints and follow-up period. MastCell ^Talk 20:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Henry Bauer

Thanks a lot for warning me. Heh, you see, I actually had no idea of who this guy was until yesterday. I was updating a source on Homeopathy, when I saw that Society for Scientific Exploration was a red link. After doing that stub, I found that the editor-in-chief was also a red link, so I started his article too. (that reminds that I still have to start Scientific Exploration Society :P).

I haven't still arrived to the news reports, because I'm compiling evidence for his research. I have heard that there are some ugly disputes around the AIDS denialism article with high profile administrators involved, and drama being given away like candy. I peeked a bit at the article, but I haven't still read anything from the talk page.

What I don't understand is how the situation can become ugly. You mean that a possible AfD could become a battleground? Or maybe that the article can start being botched by POV warriors? Or maybe I can be accused of stuff due to improving this article? I'd rather know what are the dangers before I get into the middle of them. Send me an email if you'd rather not detail them on public.

Btw, I totally agree with you that some of the sources on the article are totally unbiased moderate leftist sources with no axe to grind :D --Enric Naval (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Bauer probably meets the WP:PROF notability criteria by virtue of having headed Virginia Tech for some time. My practical experience of WP:PROF is that a significant portion of the AfD community feel that anyone reaching full-professor rank is notable, though I don't agree. Re: AIDS denialism, I don't really see "ugly disputes" there - more like occasionally a minor coordinated effort to insert AIDS-denialist material occurs and then peters out. Not aware of any high-profile admins involved. You couldn't mean me, could you? I'm officially a mid-level drone, unless I was promoted to Drama Magnet Admin without my knowledge... :) MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, MastCell, no, I was not referring to you. It seems that I'm confusing myself with other controversies. I have been involved on so many controversial articles lately that I'm starting to get them mixed :D I'll later read the talk page of AIDS denialism to see what's cooking there.

I'm going to un-prod the article once I make a few more improvements, I want to make sure that I nail it before un-prodding. Btw, Keepcalm, can you point me to a few news articles with those controversies, or at least give a few hints on where to search for them? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, keepcalm, if you want the information on those controversies to make it into the article, then you will have to find very good sources for them, per the WP:BLP policy about negative statements on living persons' articles --Enric Naval (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the prod and also a notability tag that was already there. I left a message on the talk page of the article explaining the reasons. Feel free to bring it to WP:AFD. Cheers --Enric Naval (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article to Henry H. Bauer --Enric Naval (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on Henry H. Bauer! If I had known he was a member of the prestigious National Association of Scholars, I never would have questioned his notability, much less prodded the article. By the way, if you customarily spend an entire day adding fascinating details to articles of people you just heard about yesterday, I would very much like to direct you to my own bio! Thanks again, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, casually, I was coming to your talk page to chastise you for removing his membership to that association [2], which I found very weird because their article supports the affirmative action link :D

Heh, I still need to spend more time looking for stuff. This is a long term thing.

Also, man, be more careful. Here you remove the Time magazine source that I had just added because of incorrect quoting, but 15 minutes you have forgotten about it, and you prod the article here saying that it has only two sources from Bauer's website and a college newsleter.

--Enric Naval (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Enric. You might want to "spend more time looking for stuff" before you "chastise" other editors for inconsistency. You would then realize that I didn't remove the NAS membership, I simply moved it out of the lead and into a relevant section, explaining my actions. And as for two versus three sources mentioned in my prod, I referred only to the ones present at the time, not all sources that had ever been used for the article. Would you have preferred that I bring up your blatant plagiarism of the Time article? I suspect not, and I didn't, because I assumed in good faith that you didn't know it's not appropriate to cut and paste into Wikipedia.

By the way, the "man" appellation doesn't work for me. Try not to make gender assumptions with people you don't know. Thanks, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: why did you call the behavior of others "condescendent" (condescending) here when you make condescending edit summaries like "improve that memory" on my talk? There's no reason to make this personal. Aren't we both just trying to improve Wikipedia? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I had postponed reading the controversy section until I had some time to check the sources, and I hadn't noticed that you had mentioned the association there :( I'm very sorry for that. Next time I'll double-check that you dind't re-add the information somewhere else on the article. Again, sorry for that

Also, I apologize for my badly-worded comments on your memory or lack of thereof, which were caused by me having spent a lot of time trying to source the university courses usage on a neutral way and being annoyed that they were removed for OR. I should have gone away from the computer and answered the next day instead of answering inmediately.

I assure you that I wasn't accusing you of bad faith, it was more a suggestion that you were on good faith removing sources for a good reason and then reviewing the article and in good faith tagging a sentence without remembering that you had removed the source on technical grounds. Basically, now I look back at it, I was on the verge of making a personal attack on you. (I was even going to suggest the intake of ginseng, which in my country is commercialized to students as a remedy to improve memory for exam time. Luckily I didn't do so, because it turns out that the ginseng article on wikipedia only mentions its use to increase sexual potence!).

As for the prod, actually, I would have preferred that you mentioned that there was also a Time magazine source, since that helps to establish some notability. Had I done the prod, I would have used a neutral wording like: "there was also a Time magazine source that mentions him, but I removed it because it was not being used correctly".

Sorry for the gender implication. I'll address you by the correct gender from now on.

I'll go now to the article talk page to address the content issues, and I'll refrain myself from making more assumptions on you. My bad. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also answer now on my talk page the other issues you mention there --Enric Naval (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently just trying to report the research he has done, so the article might be unbalanced because it lacks mainstream analysis on his work. For how his research is a lie, there should be extensive literature saying this, but I don't know where to look at. Since you can probably find sources way easier than me, can you add those sources on the article and explain how his views have been shunned by other scientists to balance the article? (for example, I would have never found by myself all those AP articles) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation

Just a heads-up that your suspicions were correct. MastCell ^Talk 05:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks! Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]