Hello Pproctor! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- Netsnipe (Talk)20:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as your changes to the Raymond V. Damadian page, are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you.
Unconstructive edits, vandalism? nonsense. The page on Raymon V Damadian contains numerous factual errors and much evident confusion about the technology which I was just attempting to correct. I'm and MD PhD who was there when all this stuff was going on. Even published papers in the field and know many of the princopals. See my comments at Talk:Raymond V. Damadian
Response to Damadian Questions
Hi PP. You recently asked about my background and whether I had the expertise to edit the Damadian article. Well, let me answer you. I'm currently a graduate student at the Robarts Research Institute, in the imaging department. My thesis involves using novel pulse sequences to exploit the signal properties of magnetic perturbers and I recently wrote a review about the history of NMR and MRI. So while I may not be an MD/PhD (a fact that you boast about frequently), at least I'm doing work in the area. If I'm not mistaken, you're a hair transplant surgeon, aren't you? 72.139.184.10723:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. It was wrong to think that I, a graduate student writing pulse sequences, would know how T1 and T2 work. It was foolish to argue with someone who did MRI 30 years ago and now sells hair tonic. My bad.72.139.185.1918:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point- Wikipedia does not rely on experts. Any one can edit anything. What matters are things like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and good writing. We generally don't care what expertise people have. JoshuaZ18:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, Wikiopedia does value expert input and actively solicits it. E.g., there is this banner on uric acid : "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. Please help recruit one, or improve this page yourself if you can..." I took this as an invitation. Apparently mistakenly. Pproctor21:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest that you take a look round at other article to see how they are written, before. You may be inserting valid content but it is so badly written that it's going to take someone twice the time it took you to write it to clean it up. — Dunc|☺15:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, try not to get upset. Take it slowly, one point at a time. You seem to be well-educated so you really ought to know how to write. You must apply yourself properly - think before spewing text onto the Internet (friendly advice). — Dunc|☺15:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please do not make edits like this where you significantly alter your previous statements. It makes it hard for people to follow conversation threads because it is difficult to figure out what replied to what without going through all the difs. JoshuaZ04:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia, as you did in Baldness treatments. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.
It's a conflict of interest linking to your own website when you're a hair loss treatment doctor. If you want to support the statement that a particular treatment works, please cite a medical journal or research paper directly. -- Netsnipe (Talk)20:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er. I understand the prohibition aganst "advertising". But some of the stuff on this page is right out of my work with, no credit given. I would like to be able to cite it. Also, I link to a published paper, the full text of which is on my website.
Peter H Proctor, PhD, MD
Wikipedia has a major problem with Google bombing and a lot of people try to add their own websites to articles to increase their online profile. But seeing as your site doesn't have any ads on them, your intentions are probably more honorable than most others. Feel free to restore your links, but Wikipedia does prefers content over links. Baldness treatments is an absolute mess right now and when I have some free time I'm going to have to weed out half of it since most of it seems to be advertising rather than references to proper peer-reviewed medical journals and papers. -- Netsnipe (Talk)21:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you going on about?
What Scandinavian rules concerning scientific misconduct? You're not allowed to speculate. You're not allowed original research.
Also, far as I can tell there is a huge difference between Carr politely pointing out that his contribution may have been overlooked, and Damadian arrogantly whinging to the world how he was slighted.
The article is also primarily about Damadian, not Carr.
Not intending to start a flame war, but if you are going to revert, please at least read what you are reverting.
<Also, far as I can tell there is a huge difference between Carr politely pointing out that his contribution may have been overlooked, and Damadian arrogantly whinging to the world how he was slighted.>
Good for Damadian, whatever his case. It is about time that somebody complained loud and long about this situation. Actually, if you read Carr's letter, it is much stronger than Damadian's protest, if not nearly as loud. He essentially accuses the Nobel winners of citation plagarism. In a dignified way, naturally.
<The article is also primarily about Damadian, not Carr.>
You can't talk about Damadian without talking about the Nobel. You can't talk about the Nobel without talking about Herman Carr. Otherwise, the flavor of this complete screw-up gets lost.
Evidently, I must spell this out. The point I made in the stuff you reverted was that the way the Nobel prize works, the Noble committee regularly commits scientific misconduct by the local Scandinavian rules. The above is a link to a paper in the Journal Lancet summarizing those rules. The Damadian and Carr business is just one more example. Remember, the issue is whether Damadian and Carr were justified in "whining". Pproctor21:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who says that the Nobel Prize Committee regularly commits scientific misconduct? Have you a third party reliable source? — Dunc|☺21:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the Swedish and Danish definitions of Scientific misconduct and figure it out for yourself.
Danish Definition: "Intention(al) or gross negligence leading to fabrication of the scientific message or a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist"
Swedish Definition: "Intention{al} distortion of the research process by fabrication of data, text, hypothesis, or methods from another researcher's manuscript form or publication; or distortion of the research process in other ways."
Strictly-speaking, the Nobel foundation regularly gives "a false credit or emphasis to a scientist". And everytime, this gives rise to objections See Nobel Prize controversies for a list, with cites. I'm on it, BTW. Since the Swedish definition is based upon the Danish one, I assume it also incorporates this. It is just inherent in the mismatch between reality and how the prize is awarded.
You haven't answered the question. The connection between the two is your own original research. Where does a third party source say this? — Dunc|☺18:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NPOV dispute "Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties....."
"Historians commonly cite many sources in books because there are and will always be disputes over history. Contributors on Wikipedia can do the same thing, thus giving readers a broad spectrum of POVs and opinions...." Pproctor23:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did, by pointing out that you are using a straw argument and completely missinterpreting the Wikipedia rules. All this nonsense made me reread them. They are pretty much the same as the last time I read them a couple of years ago and do not support your interpretation at all. Which is why I cite them above. E.g., in case of differences, the disputed "opinions and POV's" get aired.
You get your say and I get mine. BTW, figuring it was a waste of time to argue it, several revisions ago, I dropped the issue of the Nobel foundation's putative science misconduct as secondary.
However, one more time: I presented with an appropriate cite the local Scandiavian definitions for Scientific misconduct and pointed out that, technically, the Nobel foundation breaks them. E.g., the very commentator who accuses Damadian of "whining" notes that many others have been treated similarly. I.e., a "false emphasis or credit", etc. has been given to someone else. I am sorry that you seem unable to comprehend this. Pproctor15:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't understand the objections. The page I link too is not commercial and just contains a bunch of links to scientific papers, patents, etc. It is pretty benign compared to what else is on the baldness treatments page. Also, with millions of out-going links from Wikipedia diluting page rank to nothing, a link to a particular website does no good with Google rank. So what is the problem? Pproctor14:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you in any way related to that site? If so, you should avoid posting links to it. Also, collections of links are rarely a good external resource. It's preferable to link to the real object instead. --Abu Badali14:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we interpret the rules differently. You shouldn't link to commercial pages. But where does it say you cannot link to non-commercial ones, review articles, etc.? Similarly, links to pages summarizing links are a lot tidier than listing each link individually. Pproctor15:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. You will abide by the rules established by the community. Self-promotion is not allowed. You will not add commercial links to your own sites. If you think a link ought to be added to your site you should add it to the talk page and try to get someone else to concur with you. — Dunc|☺16:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. It is true that commercial promotion (which that page is not) and undue self-promotion is frowned upon. But, otherwise, reliable sources are OK, even if on ones own website. E.g., among other things, the page on my website links to an invited book chapter I did for a CRC handbook. The page also summarizes a bunch of patents ( you can't get more "peer-reviewed" than that) plus links to peer-reviewed scientific articles, book chapters, etc..
Ironically, a lot of the stuff on the wiki page refers to stuff that I have patents on or originally published upon. Just trying to give the cites, which are not given in the body of the text. BTW, why don't you-all object to that?.
However, if I did so in the body (even if it is MY patents and MY work), this would draw heat as self-promotion. Similarly, I could have listed each of my patents and papers separately at the end. Quite justifiable in light of how much of the test of the article comes from them. Better to just give a link to them, without direct reference to who did what.
Given your arrogance and contempt for policy, I kinda expected that response, but this is not negotiable. You will not promote yourself on Wikipedia. — Dunc|☺17:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger: "The only way Wikipedia can achieve these things is to jettison its anti-elitism and to moderate its openness to trolls and fools;..."
I'll refrain from getting into another useless fight here concerning our (er) distinct opinions about "Policy", which I can (and have) quote to you all day long, give the history of, etc. Except, to again note that I was mainly trying to give some cites which are unfortunately missing from the baldness treatments entry. Again, the page is not "commercial" and again, I was trying to avoid "promoting" myself. If original sources were forbidden from providing missing cites (which they are not), Wiki would eventually face some copyright problems. Pproctor18:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
