User talk:Scray

New messages at the bottom, please.
If you leave messages here, please expect a response from me over here.
If I've left a message on your talkpage, and I'm slow to respond to a reply made there, please let me know by giving me a nudge here.
If you use the E-MAIL THIS USER feature to contact me and I don't know you, please make sure you indicate your Wikipedia user name in the message otherwise I may not reply.
Here's my Talk page archive #1 and archive #2

JFW welcoming me to Wikipedia

Please comment on Talk:Vulva

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Vulva. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry in the United Kingdom

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry in the United Kingdom. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your well reasoned discussion re improving the alternative medicine article

Thanks for your well reasoned discussion re improving the alternative medicine article, resulting in air tight MEDRS sources for the lede first two sentences, and RS for the first paragraph. Now lets see if we can keep the content and sources from being slowly removed as appears to have happened in the past. Thanks again. :) ParkSehJik (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I could contribute and respect your efforts to improve the article. That said, while I do agree that allopathic medicine needs more scientific evidence (and the fact that allopathic medicine accepts this standard is a major distinction from alternative medicine) I was dismayed by the sweeping generalizations about addiction to psychiatric medications that poisoned your comment. Those comments were off-topic for that Talk page, original research, and patently offensive to those who know and respect medical practitioners. I seriously doubt you are right, but the onus is not on me because I did not make the claim (stating you don't have evidence is not an excuse - you should not have made the claim if you knew you had no evidence). So, I'm glad to work on content with you, but will have a hard time collaborating with you if you continue to assassinate character without good cause. -- Scray (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to talk page discussions and am now seeing what you mean by "poisoned" in relation to being OR and offtopic (and entirely anecdotal). By going offtopic with OR, I have enabled further offtopic discussion by others, distracting from discussion on improving the article. I am going back and deleting my offtopic comments. ParkSehJik (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poisoning the well of support, or adding RS bitter evidence based medicine to its waters?

Re your comment re my unsourced sweeping generalizarion possibly poisoning my comments - some RS for evidence based bitter medicine - "Here, at Marah, God's provision was at hand to make the bitter waters sweet: Jehovah showed Moses "a tree, which when he had cast into the waters, the waters were made sweet.". Also more of "God's provision" here.

Both edits unlikely to generate new friends. ParkSehJik (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you fully realize that as editors of WP it's more important to create a good encyclopedia than to make friends. That being said, an effective editor manages to balance meaningful contributions with compelling evidence - and sometime that means a LOT of work, or not making a charged edit that isn't airtight. If others see you on the wrong side of that fence too many times, they may get the impression of non-neutral POV (undermining your effectiveness). Please don't go down that path - you have a lot to contribute and in the long run you'll make a difference. Remember: there's no deadline. -- Scray (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good advise re "effective". There is already source-free edit warring[1] to revert my edits[2]. I get even stronger reactions in the real world, just from my reading statements on the topic in peer reviewed law and medical journals. I will try to take your advise outside of Wiki, in addition to following in inside. Please feel free to watch and warn me if I don't follow your advise. I have very thick skin, so dont hold back. ParkSehJik (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Likely firestorm?

You might want to see my most recent talk page section (and possibly comment?), because I expect that although impeccably MEDRS sourced, the edit will generate an emotional response and thereby possible edit wars from "believers". ParkSehJik (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replied. Don't worry - you're doing fine - just stick to verifiable statements, be concise, and remember that there's no deadline. What we're producing will be around for a very long time. -- Scray (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK - RS, concise, patience. ParkSehJik (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're still watching my usertalk page (here), but I know you're not crazy about having a lot of stuff on yours. Just a piece of advice to consider: you might want to allow a bot to archive your usertalk page (as I did in this edit), rather than blanking it yourself. As you've already seen, another user found this disquieting, and it gives the vague impression that you're hiding something. You're not, of course - it's easy enough for someone to look in the page archives, so it doesn't really afford privacy, but it is a little less convenient for visitors. -- Scray (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I thought everything was preserved in the history page. I did not expect to be spending time on talk pages, or that editing at Wikipedia might involve lengthy debate about things that are so clear set out in the medical literature, so did not read about archiving talk pages. ParkSehJik (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am an expert in real life, but I've learned to put that sense of authority aside, and embrace the egalitarian nature of Wikipedia - all are equals, and decisions are based on the 5 pillars. This has major benefits - in principle, bullies should have very little leverage. In content debates, administrators have no more sway than the rest of us. It's a meritocracy. Of course, people don't always live by the rules, but here (unlike real life) I can just walk away from drama and find other places to contribute. Like all collaborative processes, discussion is an essential element, and Talk pages also provide a record of the discussion so we don't have to start at the beginning every time someone new "arrives" at a page to chip in. -- Scray (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will restore my talk page and set an autoarchive page to move things to. (Incidentally, in real life, I would consider your comment in the section above - "patently offensive" - to be a compliment. That attitude does not belong here, however. If some might find my real world views on medical practitioners (especially never-leave-a-potential-client-unmedicated psychiatrists) patently offensive, I wonder how my far more extreme views might be described on those who practice in the legal profession (especially forensic psychiatry law re conservatorship asset seizure and involuntary commitment, with "expert" forensic psychiatrists taking $500/hr from those involuntarily under their witch-hunting professional eye, and the rest divided up by the non-victims, and all based on a false perception that what is going on is "science-based".) ParkSehJik (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find your perspective unsettlingly plausible - there are abuses in every sphere and abuses by physicians the most reprehensible of all (because their authority is based on both public and personal trust). Psychiatry is among the least precise specialties, scientifically. Practitioners of many other specialties are also guilty of if-all-you-have-is-a-hammer-then-everything-looks-like-a-nail prescribing, and the profession must do a better job of policing itself or accept a loss of autonomy. I think the latter is happening already. All the best in your editing - I wish problems with professions were as easy as editing the pages that describe them. -- Scray (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Imagine for a moment that~~ (Recall all those times when) you arrived as a new resident in (Those) town(s), and found that things are a bit of a mess. People don't even consistently follow their own rules. You have a lot of energy (basis for bipolar "disorder" diagnosis) and began a solo mission to improve the place (because initial attempts to rally citizens were met with silence - they simply hung back). When people approach and ask why you're doing something a certain way and in such a rush, you talk really fast (Pressured speech - bipolar again), shout (even though they are not shouting) (because of your partial deafness), point out their rules to justify your actions, etc. You find yourself frustrated; if every time this pattern continue(d), they ~~might even~~ tr(ied) to ~~shut~~ (ran) you out (of town, and succeeded).

Alternatively, imagine asking people what they'd like to fix, carefully notice what they're working on, or just try fixing a little something and see how they react. You learn the community's ways of doing things, and develop some working relationship (of course some are easier to work with than others).

((((You may even try going to the town Church on Sunday with everyone - of course with services in a foreign language so as not to rile you back up again))))

Now, you begin to point out some things that you think need fixing, and some of the longtime community members participate; maybe not all (or even many) of them, but you have built up some trust and can have a civil dialog.

How you do things, how you communicate, and maintaining a collaborative pace can make a big difference when there's a lot of work to be done. -- Scray (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very well put. I made some corrections for accuracy. ParkSehJik (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(very big grin) Fantastic how you personalized it. One other comment (which I have made to others - it's not specific to you): I do my best to avoid editing topics in which I am widely known as an expert in real life. I find that my opinions are so strong that I get too frustrated to work with others. When I find my blood boiling... I find somewhere else to edit (or something else to do). When I can't see straight, then I cannot edit with poise.

It may seem counter-intuitive to avoid editing areas you know best, but I find that it helps me keep an even keel and develop better collaborations with other editors - because we're peers. At some point, when I'm really well-established, I might move toward my real passions; at that point, I'll have built up some trust and some solid editing habits that may help modulate the passion.

You have to find what works for you - but I'm worried about the ruckus you're raising so quickly. -- Scray (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I described at MEDRS what I will hereby coin as "Darwin's Bulldog phenomenon". That is when a very smart and ethical (are these equivalent?) person comes out swinging based on emotion, self reflects, then not only changes position, but becomes a strong advocate for what they at first agrued against from emotion, erroneous cultural bias, and by reductio ad ridiculum, not a sound basis for argument. Perhaps in a reversal of what you describe above, by refraining in the real world, Wiki editors may experience Darwin's Bulldog phenomanon, and become advocates outside Wiki. (PS, thanks for your AGF reminder to others. I would love it if all psychiatry could be brought around to being true medicine, so I certainly do not have an anti-psych POV, just a "state from and cite the RS" POV. I am pretty sure that my true off-Wiki POV is entirely alien from anything anyone here has ever thought of, or about, before. When I state it in Academia, the reactions I get are not ridicule, but expressions such as one gets when thinking of something core to their life first enters their mind, of which they do not know how to place in their existing categories, similar to when one first learns of the technological singularity, but more proximal in time. OffWiki, I am doing exactly what you suggest I do here, planting the seed in others, and letting it grow in them, and then do the "editing" of content into the world. ParkSehJik (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PSS - You reacted similarly to just the RS based part of my true POV - "unsettlingly plausible", re just the RS based part of my true POV. My true POV is not in any source, and certainly not in a RS secondary source, and likely you, like others, would find it to be more than "unsettling" and "plausible". "Nightmare-like" and "inevitable" would more likely pop up as descriptive. ParkSehJik (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Prometheus (film)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Prometheus (film). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of my favorite edits for pithy humor

You just made the first entry in my "List of my favorite edits for pithy humor" ParkSehJik (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision

From you to me: "Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Circumcision are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. I reverted your edit because the Talk page is to be used for suggested improvements to the article, not chatting about the topic. Please make a constructive suggestion for improving the article and it will be considered. Scray (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)"

The "discussion" WAS meant to improve the topic. The article is locked. I would like to see some editors point out certain facts. That the REAL HIV prevention % percentage is 1.3%, not 60%, that not ALL medical and scientific organizations agree with the WHO. ONLY THE W.H.O. (and a few other organizations) claim circumcision reduces HIV. MOST medical organizations do NOT agree with that. Yet, on the Circumcision article, ONLY the WHO'S point of view is expressed. It seems to be a place for WHO shills. MOST people do NOT believe circumcision reduces HIV. MOST medical organizations do not agree...only those in AMERICA. That is why I was pointing this stuff out. Please do not revert it as ALL DISCUSSION on the discussion page could influence people are be used to IMPROVE the article. The statistics simply do NOT confirm what the WHO claims about "circumcision as HIV prevention" yet in the article Circumcision, only the WHO's findings are expressed. If the page were not locked, perhaps people could help improve the article. Until then, all we have is the discussion page. 99.55.142.31 (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was discussing this to point out certain things. For example...If circumcision reduces HIV...how come the UNITED STATES (where most men are circumcised) has a HIGHER HIV rate than Japan, Germany, Italy, France, UK, Sweden, Spain, Greece, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, etc. (where most men are NOT circumcised.) How come MOST AFRICAN COUNTRIES have a higher HIV rate among the circumcised population than the UNcircumcised population.

Wouldn't you think this should be pointed out in the article? That though the WHO claims something...statistics do not back it up. I have no problem with the article stating what the WHO "CLAIMS"...but it should also mention these other facts. That circumcised nations have higher HIV rates.

DON'T YOU THINK? I would love to hear a response from you about this. 99.55.142.31 (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you had put on the Talk page of that article looked more like a forum post than a suggestion for the article - in fact, there was no specific suggestion that I could discern; rather, it appeared to be the use of the Talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX for a specific point of view. -- Scray (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you're unhappy with the removal - you've made your point. If you'd like to influence the article's content, please use the Talk page there and make suggestions for improving it. -- Scray (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Penis

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Penis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Respect

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Kudos to you and much respect for sticking up for and trying to guide ParkSehJik through the oftentimes depressing and vituperative landscape WP ... FiachraByrne (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - thank you! I know how hard it is to get started here. -- Scray (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

I decided before deleting the statement as not having RS, I would add a citation needed tag to it, and put in the article what it is that the state of Florida is supposedly "accrediting", which if true, will result in medical insurance coverage for what I quoted, all paid for out of both my and your monthly premiums. Is this "promotional"... or comic?, i.e., :(, or :) ? ParkSehJik (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your use of "citation needed" was an appropriate template, superior to my prior deletion. It's courteous to give an editor a little time to find a reliable source (as long as it's not a BLP violation or dubious therapeutic claim). The response "this is what I heard when I registered" (or something to that effect) did not suggest that the editor understands our sourcing standards. -- Scray (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See comment from other editor below, and then try to re-read your comments here (with their perspective in mind). I'll try to comment at AltMed soon, but I really have to run (real life is keeping me busy). -- Scray (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comment is gone, but the repeated claim that words like "unproven" or "disproven" need to be removed from the lede because "there is 'some evidence' of efficacy of some alternative medicine", needs to somehow be addressed. The careful and thoughtful selection of NSF and NYAS words like "unproven" and "disproven" and using the "scientific method", as compared to a bunch of terribly designed experiments and carefully selected traditional herbal medicines surviving a Cochrane systematic review that admits to the methodological problems, but still indicates "some evidence", is a far cry from saying that 365 acupuncture points is "based on science", not Chinese astrology, or acupuncture having been "proven" because one of the 365 points may have some association with brain function, if the outcome of the terribly designed experiments were repeatable with better designed ones. ParkSehJik (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another perspective is requested

Scray, I have noticed that the patronizing comments and bad faith accusations from Park regarding my edits have now made it to your talk page, under the heading of LOL? I believe that you are here to help Park become a better editor, rather than encourage this kind of tendentious editing style? If you would like to help, please feel free to comment here [3]. I have tied to make minor copy-edit improvements to the article, which were all systematically reverted by Park. Rather than use policy or a common goal of improving the article to discuss the minor copy-edits he/she reverted, you can see that Park simply continues to use ad-hominum and strawman arguments, at the article talk page and apparently here, to avoid the issue. In the absence of real policy-based challenges, I should not have to spell out reference fixes and organizational fixes to avoid them being continuously reverted by Park, the edit summaries were very clear and our goal is to improve the article and make a good encyclopedia! I definitely should not have to be subjected to bad-faith accusations and ad-hominum attacks as part of that, policy based arguments are enough! I cannot simply restore the minor article improvements that Park has reverted because he has inexplicably placed a 3RR warning on my talk page regarding the restoration of copy-edits and I prefer to not edit war. The perspective of other editors would thus be appreciated. Would you be willing to give a perspective based on policy? Puhlaa (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just peeked at WP and saw your note - I will try to get over there to respond but it's a lot to process and real life has me busy - I will try to contribute thoughtfully soon. -- Scray (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]