User talk:Sci guy

Welcome

Hello Sci guy, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions on HIV and AIDS. It looks like you've been around for over a fortnight, and probably have got the hang of Wikipedia, but I thought it would be good to give you the proper welcome, even belatedly. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Gareth Hughes 10:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

HIV infection odds

Unfortunately they DO read like book maker odds. I'd like to just say "this is the most infectious way to get HIV" but, especially in this bio article, people want facts/numbers. I was actually shocked how low the numbers were for contracting HIV via vaginal sex, and saying it with numbers is less bias and less POV than saying "surprisingly HIV isn't very easy to get through vaginal sex". It sucks, and I wish there was a way to make it read a little better, but we gotta stick to NPOV.

Any effort to make the article be more "accessable" to read, ie not feel like you need a degree in biology or be a researcher would be MUCH appreciated though.

As for the numbers being speculative...it's the best data we have. That CDC table (which i think you gave us) is an overall summary...that 30% man who made a cluster of infections could really have just been a very sexually violent man. i trust CDC data, but one man doesn't represent a population. JoeSmack (talk) 17:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. - if you are editing the article and changing a lot of stuff do it in chunks...it makes it easier if someone has a disbute about a revision to point to the specific one for reference. this last one you pulled out condom stuff, reworded the contraction statement in the beginning and change the circumcision stuff (which is a very sensitive topic for Jakew, as you know). JoeSmack (talk) 17:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I know wikipedia isn't a crystalball. If you phrase it like you did in my talk page it makes the numbers come to life a bit more, which I actually think would be better for the article. But numbers are numbers - they predict trends. This makes them educated guesses and not 'future seeing' entities. But the population numbers are more acurate than a cluster number like that man who infected 30% of the women he had sex with. But once again, that man could have just been a guy really into rough sex, more so than most men which is a good explanation as to why he had a higher infection rate. You know, occam's razor and all that... JoeSmack (talk) 16:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

---

Sci Guy, you're a smart, dedicated fellow, obviously...but please stop trying to sneak shit into the article. I know you have a different view on HIV/AIDS then others, and I respect your input but I can't help but feel like sometimes you listen to the things you want to hear and ignore what you don't. That cluster you are refering to I just commented on (see above) is NOT reliable for general population risk of HIV infection. The data also comes from 1997, which isn't too new. JoeSmack (talk) 16:33, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Read the editorial note at the end. It is unclear exactly what happened. They say so themselves. Even at this, I think myself that people are most infectious soon after they are infected themselves. I believe studies show that. But you added stuff about the cluster which made it seem like HIV is far more infectious than it is. You also removed all the stuff on vaginal/anal/oral sex, which COULDN'T have been an acident. I can't help but feel like you're intentionally skewing the wording towards you're views. JoeSmack (talk) 17:02, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Your User Page

Hey Sci Guy. Reading your user page, I'm curious to know a bit more about what you do. What kind of researcher are you exactly? Do you work for a company or team of people? How'd you get so involved in HIV research in the first place? JoeSmack (talk) 04:12, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Really? That is really interesting. How do you like the article here on wikipedia on schizophrenia? What have you found surrounding genetic aspect of the disease? Personally I have a very close friend who has schizophrenia in his family, and who is obviously effected by it (has trouble sleeping alone, he crashes on my couch a lot because he'll hear auditory hallucinations alone in his room).

They challenged you to fix the AIDS article eh? ;) Well, lets show em! I know we don't see eye to eye on everything, but we share the same intentions - making a kick ass article of a very sensitive, controversal and important topic! JoeSmack (talk) 16:01, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism Of AIDS archive

yeah, you're a research scientist, I guess on the internet you can be anything you want to be, in either case I undid your vandalism of AIDS archive # 3, I'm sure you find "Gay related Disease" to be humorous, as a result of your many years of experience as a research scientist, however my many years of experience as the president of the united states, 27 to be exact, lead me to believe that you're a BS artist, and a petty vandal --172.152.1.161 15:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Careful of the three-revert rule

You've made two outright reversions on AIDS today, and there's a third edit today that is exceptionally close to a revert. Please mind the WP:3RR, or you will be blocked. - jredmond 17:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Please put away the chainsaw

See my comment in Talk:HIV. Massive reverts to a six-week-old version are not the way to trim down an overly long article. There is no reason you can't do what other editors do and work through it section by section, collaboratively.

You haven't engaged in discussion of this except to keep repeating "it's too long", and some of your justifications are not true:

1. It is not impossible for "most users" to edit articles over 32K. People using old software can still easily edit one section at a time, which is what most people do anyway.
2. Having a lot of images does not prevent the page from loading. The text loads first, then the images are filled in. If it works otherwise for you, maybe something's wrong with your software.

I do agree that some of the images are superfluous, and the files can probably be made smaller too; but to just zap the pictures out, with no discussion over what purpose they serve, is extremely rude. And to revert a month and a half of substantial edits, twice, is beyond rude (and, to my mind, much worse than any of the stuff people have fought with you over before on the HIV/AIDS articles). Take a deep breath and go to the talk page - it's not the end of the world if the article stays too long for a little while. ←Hob 07:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Take away the references and a little of the tranmission epidemiology and the article is only 33kb. To revert to an old version, and to corrupt a factually correct article is not Wiki like. More denialist in nature. --Grcampbell 21:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)