User talk:Scray/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Barnstar

Please accept this Barnstar:

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your quick response and this perfect edit summary: "the point of the numbers is comparison, facilitated by shared denominator" Graham Colm (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

For the benefit of page watchers, here's the edit: [1]. Graham Colm (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Every interaction with you is a pleasure - thanks very much. -- Scray (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

...and another one...

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		For your work at HIV assessing the scientific literature and its interpretation. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!! -- Scray (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Origins of AIDS edit

FYI, in reference to your comments, Cameroon is considered West Africa and Congo is considered Central. Most of the article makes reference to Cameroon, which is West Africa, good day--MsTingaK (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you're referring to the Origin of AIDS article. Your edit had no edit summary - an important thing you should use, and something that helps other editors understand your edits.

With respect to the geographic assignment of Cameroon to Central Africa, do you have a reliable source? Mine is the United Nations, specifically their maps of western and central Africa. Absent a source more reliable than the UN, I think we should stick with the designation as it was before you changed it. -- Scray (talk) 03:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

One source is the CIA Fact book for citation purposes: "Location: Western Africa, bordering the Bight of Biafra, between Equatorial Guinea and Nigeria" https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cm.html, culturally and geographically, they are West African but it seems like the US and UN are not in agreement onthie matter.

Also, on the issue on including notes section for edits, of it is understood.--MsTingaK (talk) 06:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Our own opinions carry no weight when it comes to edits - it's incumbent on us to support edits with the most reliable sources we can find. That said, I would find it interesting if someone suspicious of the United States would trust the CIA over the United Nations regarding African geopolitics. -- Scray (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for catching[2] a peculiar vandalism to my Talk page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure; it was a particularly inane form of vandalism. -- Scray (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

for cleaning up the Genetic Code entry. I did it once but apparently the writer of that paper really insists. KookBot2 (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

To scary: Male lactation and Male pregnancy.

Greetings. How are you? I have posted on discussion page of Male lactation and WIKIPROJECT: MEDICINE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Male_lactation). I hope you have read my posts carefully and come to know the severity of the matter. Some people are not so serious in improving such articles in relation with modern Medical Literature and Reference Books. Please read my post of INVENTION OF MEDICAL TERMS and what I have said about ECTOPIC PREGNANCY IN HUMAN MALES in the above provided link. Ill be very busy for sometime..may take longer...BUT just want some reliable persons to check and mend medical articles in accordance with MEDICINE PRINCIPLES. Such articles are a great source of ATTRACTION to many (mostly people irrelevant to the field) and are therefore subject to inappropriate and unauthentic sourcing. Hope you understand and help WIKIPEDIA to develop into an authentic encyclopedia. Thanks and peace be to all! §kam§119.153.69.5 (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I do "watch" that page and many others - will contribute when I am able (constrained by time and cognition). -- Scray (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. ECTOPIC PREGNANCY IN HUMAN MALES. Isn't any pregnancy in a male by definition "ectopic"? MastCell ^Talk 22:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're wrong, MastCell. I just checked the ectopic pregnancy article, and it doesn't even mention males. Where do you get your facts??!? Nice to see your sig, btw - always welcome in these parts. -- Scray (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

greetings scary. check ectopic implantation in human males in the article: Male pregnancy. There are many speculations and claims. The reason for that is these topics are not regularly seen by medical field experts and hence some people with little knowledge link citations from unauthentic and hoax sources (SOURCES that might be good but are science fictions sometime and not related to the said field) wether unknowingly or with purpose. I can too mend these topics into articles that are close to genuine but as I have said my step exam is near...so running short of time....therefore can not do for now. However I have clarified many things by posting.§kam§

I have written some phrases in bold and capital letters IN ORDER TO EMPHASIZE THEM......this should in no case be considered as "shouting"...so please don't make such comments as it is not the case. Thanks and peace be to all. §kam§119.153.136.255 (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore such definitions and NAME OF THE ARTICLES ARE NOT considered AUTHENTIC in MEDICAL WORLD. Hope you understand What I want to say. Secondly Male lactation is also not the word used in major medical encyclopedias and literature BECAUSE it is not a NORMAL PHYSIOLOGY in HUMAN MALES.......it is infact an abnormal functioning.....THE PROPER WORD FOR THIS IS "Galactorrhea". Also being concise is the key in making good articles that are medically correct, otherwise the article with inappropriate and unauthentic citations goes far from reality. Thank you very much. Well at the end I would like to say Its very hard job to maintain an encylcopedia ( especially where everyone, relevant or irrelevant to the field) is allowed to make and edit articles. Thanks again and a big clap to everyone who have strove hard for converting weak and scientifically poor articles into competent ones §kam§119.153.136.255 (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It is counter-productive to use so much bold and capitalization. You will not find this in the medical literature, for example. Let your words carry weight. Another way to do that is to be concise. The combined effect, of the length and over-emphasis in your posts, is very off-putting for me. I say this in the hope that it will help you in your interactions on WP.

Good luck with your exams. By the way, my username is spelled "scray", like the bird (not "scary", like The Birds (film)).  :-) -- Scray (talk) 09:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. One should use normal format while typing, it does not give burden to readers...very correctly said. But do consider my posts very seriously and carefully if you like that people would use wikipedia as AUTHENTIC source otherwise it won't happen. Thanks very much sacry!!!§kam§119.153.156.129 (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Usurped ja:User:Scray

Hello, Scray! Today I usurped ja:User:Scray for you as per your request. Cheers! --Kanjy (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help, and for all of your work on the projects. Unification seems like a good thing (even when users like me are not as multilingual as you)! -- Scray (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

talk page

Just to let you know: I plan to remove clear talk page violations from the AIDS denialism page. After being away from Wikipedia since August, I'm amazed that certain denialist agenda editors continue to waste so much of your (and everyone's) valuable time with fruitless debate. Please object and discuss if you disagree with my position, but I strongly oppose the abuse of Wikipedia as a publicity tool for extreme fringe ideas and feel that a hard line on violations is warranted. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice - I think the action you describe would be entirely appropriate. It's very nice to have you back, was glad to see your follow-up about tea (someday!). -- Scray (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Scray. Thank you for fixing my error and many apologies for my deletion. My explanation (weak as it is) is posted here User talk:GrahamColm#Your note. As I said to GC thank you for being more thorough than I was. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk

No problem. This is how WP works - and we've all played each of these roles, so no worries. -- Scray (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

My removal

Thread moved from my Talk page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Cuddlyable3, I wanted to let you know that I've removed your entry here, because I think it initiates a discussion that doesn't belong on Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk. Certainly the discussions there sometimes stray that far off-topic for a page that is meant to discuss improvements to the RefDesks themselves, but starting a thread off-topic seems to cross a line that we shouldn't cross. I hope you're not upset by this - I just think we shouldn't do that. I'll also acknowledge that threads like the one you were initiating may have occurred before there, but that doesn't justify doing it again. There are other places for complaints about the editing pattern of individual editors generally. -- Scray (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Scray for contacting me. Your restoration of the off-topic frame at Talk:Ref. Desk is correct. I think no action is needed if it is left that way. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Cuddly is the only one who's allowed to have off-topic stuff left un-boxed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Viruses is back

Hello, We at WikiProject Viruses noticed that you used to be a participant of the project before the project went inactive. We would like to take this opportunity to invite you to become a participant of WikiProject Viruses again. We believe that viruses are an extremely important part of an encyclopedia, and that is why we need you! Our new project coordinator is Thomas888b (talk · contribs).
We hope you seriously consider our invitation. See you there. If you are interested in joining our crew again, please place a notice on Our Talkpage, or you will be removed from our participants list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Viruses at 21:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

Hyphen within quotation

WP:MOS says "Trivial spelling or typographical errors should be silently corrected (for example, correct ommission to omission, harasssment to harassment)—unless the slip is textually important." I don't see that it is important to preserve the incorrect use of a hyphen in this case; I didn't change the spelling of "Pensylvania" on the Liberty Bell, but is it important to show that the CDC does not know how to properly use hyphens? I think WP needs a lot of editing, but inserting hyphens where they don't belong is not productive, and your blaming the AWB tool (or the editor for using it, implying carelessness) is off base. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right: I was unaware of that endorsement by WP:MOS of edits to quotations and appreciate the clarification. I have self-reverted. That said, it's a trivial edit (by your own description), and AWB rule #4 suggests avoiding use of AWB for trivial changes. It's not a change worth fighting over, but I would suggest that it was not a change worth making. Cheers. -- Scray (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, the MOS has softened considerably on this fairly recently (I think it was about six months ago); before that, any change to quotations was absolutely forbidden. I still avoid fixing misspellings on descriptions of external links where the title on the external page is misspelled, inserting [sic] instead, so readers and editors know what to expect and what not to fix. Hasta la vista! Chris the speller (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ref desk

89.243.141.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
78.150.231.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If you had been paying attention, you would have seen that the same trolling questions were posted and removed a couple of days ago, and as I recall the IP was blocked for being an obvious sock of the banned user "Light current". Unfortunately, you all took the troll bait when the guy re-posted them under a different IP. Way to go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I see that today's troll is now on a one-week suspension, and that at least one of the items he posted has been deleted.[3] So next time look at the situation before you go taking the side of the trolls. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, I did look at the situation at the time, so don't assume what you can't know. I removed a clearly inappropriate comment, which was not an answer, (yours) from the RD. That the editor was later blocked doesn't excuse your edit. If you want to remove the question (and I was tempted to, when I first saw it) then do so. If you want to comment on a question or an answer, use the Talk page (not on the RD proper). That's the way it works, by guideline and consensus. -- Scray (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So I should have deleted the whole thing and raised yet another brouhaha at the talk page. Good idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Or, choose among the options you suggested: RBI. "Comment on the RefDesk" ain't one of those. C'mon, this is obvious. Making a comment like "don't feed the troll" on the RefDesk is feeding the troll. Use talk for that. -- Scray (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What you and the others missed was that he had already been blocked for posting the same junk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, what does it matter when he was blocked? The RefDesk is Q&A. It's not your playground for whack-a-mole. This discussion is about your edit, not the editor. If you want to make another comment, go ahead, but I think this topic is played out. -- Scray (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Earlier, you excused your action on the grounds that he was blocked after it. In reality, he was previously blocked, a detail which escaped you. Don't blame me for your lack of vigilance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I just struck through that word. It doesn't change the meaning of what I said, nor the wrongness of your edit. I have no intention of checking block logs in answering RD questions - block logs are irrelevant to content. The Qs and As are there for the world to see - so we (by policy) focus on the edit, not the editor. Obsession over trolls will not help the RefDesk. If you'd followed your own advice ("RBI") you would not have commented. -- Scray (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk to user TenofallTrades to learn more about that banned user called "Light current". You're right, I should have simply zapped it, as I did previously, but I was too late, as the blinders-on editors had already "answered" those obviously-trolling questions. So, reminding them not to feed LC seemed more to the point. Next time, I'll just zap them and be done with it, regardless of who has fed the troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's nice to have a civil discussion - I have a feeling that if we'd done this at Talk:RD it would have been so painful I would have dropped out long ago. I'm much more interested in content than admin of WP. Happy editing, Bugs! -- Scray (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Thrombophilia"

I don't actually know if you're a practising medical doctor, nor do I know which country you are in.

I am a medical doctor in the UK, and we often use the term "thrombophilia". Indeed we even use the term "thrombophilia screen" to a describe a series of blood tests (including Factor V Leiden, lupus anticoagulant, etc.). This is just for your information. :-) Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It was immediately recognizable to me based on Latin roots, but not something I've heard used much. I hope that the exchange on the Talk page, where I agreed with the title, will help others who also find the term unfamiliar. Thanks - and it's always good to hear from you. -- Scray (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For your timely and valuable assistance in tracking down that last source for me in the WP:Good article review for Thrombophilia. Thanks! WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like you deserve the accolades, but I won't decline - thank you!!! This is lovely. -- Scray (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Equations

I'm sorry I went on to your talk, but I don't know if you would know If I commented so late. I found an ebook version, with all the pages :D. Here are the equations:

P = 112 erg×110/sec = 1.23×104 erg/sec = 1.23×10−3W (6.6)

$P=112\ {\text{erg}}\ \times 110/{\text{sec}}=1.23\times 10^{-3}W$

KE = 1/2 Iω²_max

$KE={\frac {1}{2}}I\omega _{max}^{2}$

The 2 and max are both the super and subscripts of ω

I = (mℓ³)/3

$I={\frac {(m\ell ^{3})}{\frac {\ell }{2}}}$

or

$I={\frac {(m\ell ^{3})}{\ell /2}}$

E = 1/2 (1.8×107 ×4×10−4 ×10−4)/2×10−2 = 18 erg

$E={\frac {1}{2}}{\frac {(1.8\times 10^{7}\times 4\times 10^{-4}\times 10^{-4})}{2\times 10^{-2}}}=18\ {\text{erg}}$

All the numbers in the parenthesis are the numerator in a fraction.

ω_max = (ν_max)/ ℓ/2

$\omega _{max}={\frac {(v_{max})}{\ell /2}}$

This one has a fraction as a denominator

ν_av = d/Δt = .57/4.5×10⁻³ = 127 cm/sec

$v_{av}={\frac {d}{\Delta t}}={\frac {.57}{4.5\times 10^{-3}}}=127\ cm/sec$

ω_max = 254/ℓ2

$\omega _{max}={\frac {254}{\ell 2}}$

or did you intend to ask for

$\omega _{max}={\frac {254}{\ell /2}}$

KE = 1/2 Iω²_max = 1/2 (10⁻³*ℓ²/3)(254/(ℓ/2))² = 43 erg

$KE={\frac {1}{2}}I\omega _{max}^{2}={\frac {1}{2}}(10^{-3}*{\frac {\ell ^{2}}{3}})({\frac {254}{\ell /2}})=43\ {\text{erg}}$

the parenthesis in the above equation are actually there except for the second one surrounding ℓ/2

E =1/2 (1.8×107 ×4×10−4 ×10−4)/2×10−2 = 18 erg

$E={\frac {1}{2}}{\frac {(1.8\times 10^{7}\times 4\times 10^{-4}\times 10^{-4})}{2\times 10^{-2}}}=18\ {\text{erg}}$

All the numbers in the parenthesis above are the numerator of a fraction.

thanks if you can do all these. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 19:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Done - see above. The last one was a repetition of one above, right? In a couple of cases I gave you a couple of choices. -- Scray (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, I started adding them to the article. I'm going to learn how to do it so I don't have to bother anybody about it again (I never had to use this before, but I guess even insects can apply some physics). Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 00:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. It's always a joy to meet and help a dedicated wikipedian who wants to generate mainspace content! -- Scray (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Your WPI talk comment.

The sock puppet case centred around two (or one) newbie editing this page, so to that extent it was about this page. I felt that page editors should at least be made aware of the existence of the SPI and my concerns. I didn't mean it to be an invitation to discussion. The reason for my second post was that another editor made some direct claims about me on the page: POV coaching sockpuppets, etc, which I wanted to respond to. Unfortuntately, whenever I take an issue to K's talk page, my comments are deleted without response, so the link was just to make my response accessible to other editors.

However you are quite right the SPI process discussion should be held on the SPI talk page, so thanks for drawing a line under this section on WPI. -- TerryE (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Malleus Fatuorum

I saw your posts there. Haranguing Malleus about his tone is unlikely to be productive. I suggest ignoring him if his tone bothers you. He is a little abrasive sometimes, as he has a lot invested in the project, and is especially likely to be waspish on matters relating to admins and adminship as he has serious qualms about the governance of the project. You'll find if you treat him with respect, engage him as an equal, and especially if you can help him with some of the important work he does, that he has a heart of gold. Sometimes it's hard to see, but it's there. Sorry for the intrusion, but I couldn't help giving you advice when I saw your post. --John (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I really do appreciate your comment. I have rarely made such out-of-the-blue comments on civility (and I have generally avoided RfAs; was just reading to see what goes on), but his behavior was so far into the negative and such a strong pattern that I felt it was worth a try (I certainly won't engage him on this topic again intentionally - I've said my piece - I'm not Don Quixote). I can see that he's extraordinarily productive in article space, so much so that it's a shame he uses his energy (and undermines his own credibility) in an area like governance (RfA) that he clearly detests. Your comments, and others I see on his talk page, do make me hope I'll have the privilege of working with him. Thanks. -- Scray (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Scray. Many users have complained about Malleus's style of communication in the past years. You may be interested in some of the past history. As you can probably tell, Malleus has always generally been given a pass for his behavior because of his massive content contributions. Threads regarding his incivility are generally closed with no resolution, and his blocks are generally overturned by friendly admins for well thought-out reasons such as "per discussion at ANI and elsewhere" (no link) and "Oh, for Pete's sake!"

ANI

Malleus Fatuorum civility issue (very recent), Malleus Fatuorum's lack of civility, Why does Malleus have a free pass to be nasty?, additional archives

WQA

Malleus Fatuorum NPA & uncivil remarks, Malleus Fatuorum, Malleus Fatuorum, additional archives

Other

• Block log
• No vested contributors, a philosophy that MF is exempt from. Swarm ^X 23:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Swarm, thanks for the background. Clearly, MF has an abrasive communication style, one that would not be tolerated in many who are less "vested"; I realize he feels like a target, but if that's true it's probably because he's drawing a very clear pattern on his own back (and he's been told how to avoid that). Unfortunately, the signal/noise ratio at AN/I is too low to send a clear message, and I'm not sure that's likely to change soon. I unwatched his Talk page a few hours after my last edit there, and I don't plan to deliberately engage MF anytime soon. I think he's undermining his own effectiveness, but that's just MHO. -- Scray (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You may think whatever you like, as may I. To be perfectly honest I'm getting more than a little tired by editors like you and Swarm, so I think I may leave you to your infantile social experiment here. Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Glad you're listening. -- Scray (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't deceive yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 03:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Cystic fibrosis image

I assume that your comment was in support of keeping the current image until a better one can be found? The user continues to remove said image which had been there for years... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge - I just posted another reply there. -- Scray (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit-related error messages

Hi.

I don't know whats going on but a few times in the last week, I've got a message saying my edit hasn't been accepted. The problem is, I'm not making edits. I only edit when I'm logged in. Any info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.131.97 (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, but am happy to try to help (BTW, if I don't give you what you need, the WP Village Pump is a good place to ask a group of knowledgeable people). How do you receive these "messages"? I only see one message (mine) to you on your Talk page, from a few months ago. Also, that's not really "your" Talk page, since it's just attached to your current IP address. I have seen situations where I have multiple browser windows open, and some are logged in while others are not - could that be part of the confusion? In any case, if you can more clearly describe what's happening, then I (or others at the Village Pump, which I'd recommend since more heads are better) will be able to give a clearer answer. -- Scray (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your concerns

I have posted a lengthy response to your concerns at my talk page. I genuinely value your opinions and input, and I hope you will take some time to read and understand what I have to say on the matter you brought up. --Jayron32 04:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply - I responded there. -- Scray (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wishing you on your first edit day

Happy First Edit Day, Scray, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Andie (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow - four years old already! Thank you. -- Scray (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject Virus Revival

You have previously shown an interest in Wikiproject Viruses by adding your name to our List of Participants. We are currently reviving the project, and would be grateful if you could indicate whether you are still interested in contributing or not on our Talk Page. You do not need to have expertise in virology to contribute to our project, as we welcome people with any degree of knowledge of the subject.
Thank you.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Viruses at 17:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC).

Dale Dubin

Dear Scray, I have reopened the 2009 discussion at User talk:Draeco/Dubin. I would greatly appreciate your re-evaluation of the article. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS

Is at GA. Wondering if I could get your expertise with the sections on pathophysiology and virology. Many thanks and hope you return soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)(please leave replies on my talk page) 19:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Publishing the Dengue article

Per here we are working on publishing the Dengue fever article in the journal Open Medicine. Are you okay with your real name being used? The authors will be listed by number of edits which would make you eighth. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 17:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper straw poll

There is currently a straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages

Dear Author/Scray

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address edited an article on Rheumatic Fever. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Scray, I sent you an email. Thank you Hydra Rain (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and A Request

I appreciate your corrections on the Ref Desk/Science article about STIs. As is often the case we had the "look it up first" leading the "haven't looked it up yet". If you are feeling strong, could you also give us your academic view on this question? We could use some definitive guidance (and I ask knowing I could be wrong again.) We seem to be talking past one another. Regards, Bielle (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have always enjoyed your contributions to WP; thus, your gracious invitation is very much appreciated. That said, I think some could describe it as being invited to a snake pit. :-) I hope my reply there adds some substance. -- Scray (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You are much too kind. That's significant substance you have added, with the focus where it belongs, on the original question. The hissing is now barely audible. I, for one, am now thinking about the best rock for sunning in the morning. Thanks for your intervention. Regards, Bielle

Keerthi at Insulin

Hi Scray, Keerthi78‎ is now flat reverting at Insulin despite detailed edit summaries explaining why he's being reverted and invitations to join the conversation on Talk:Insulin. I'm out of revert bullets at Insulin for the day. I am guessing these guys are actual scientists from India making good-faith edits but they're not ending up improving the articles. Tough case, it's not heading in a good direction right now. Zad68 15:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - it does seem to be in good faith, but they're not collaborating with the WP community (yet, I hope?). -- Scray (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Bad to worse. Without any discussion, he's put back all the problematic content. I have given him a 3RR warning on his talk page. As I mentioned, I don't want to revert there again, as I have already done 3 reverts, as compared to your two. Zad68 16:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

3 reverts would violate 3RR, and I think I may already have done that here. With additional reverts by the other user, I went back to count and make sure I would not violate 3RR, and realized I already had. Bleah. -- Scray (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not think you are counting correctly. By my count you are actually at exactly 3 reverts at Ciprofloxacin today. You are at 2 reverts at Insulin. 3 reverts do not technically violate the "bright line" 3RR rule, 4 reverts do. Whether it'll be considered 'edit warring' is another matter, but you and I have both tried very hard to communicate with the user, via Talk page, User Talk page and edit summaries. I do not think a reviewing admin will consider this to be edit warring. Zad68 16:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I hope you're right. I am more of a gnome, and edit warring is something I avoid. -- Scray (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ... this is regarding Keerthi78 at Insulin. Zad68 21:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. -- Scray (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

sig?

FYI, I think you added an extra tilde to your sig here to leave only a timestamp. No biggie; just a heads up. Matt Deres (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

d'oh! Fixed - Thanks. -- Scray (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Reversion on Meningitis article

Did you mean to revert ClueBot's anti-vandal edit? MartinezMD (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not! I clicked [rollback] next to the vandal edit, and got what looked to me like the usual confirmation screen, and moved on. Only later did I realize - I saw that a subsequent IP edit reverted me, fortunately, so I thanked them. At that point, reverting myself didn't seem sensible. I think this was a timing issue and am surprised that the rollback button did anything other than revert the precise vandal edit next to which the button was displayed. -- Scray (talk) 10:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thought so; just wanted to bring it to your attention. regards. MartinezMD (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Your efforts to keep the quality of Wikipedia's science and medical articles from degrading have not gone unnoticed! Thank you. Zad68 17:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow - this is incredibly nice thing for you to do (esp when this is a shared effort!) - thank you very much and happy editing! -- Scray (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout 03:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You're a fabulous editor. Thanks for your contributions. -- Scray (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Scray/Manually archiving the RefDesk

Shouldn't Scray/Manually archiving the RefDesk be in your User space? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you moved it properly? I guess you have moved it to another user name rather than yours. --Anbu121 (talk me) 23:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I've made a mess of it. It's now here. -- Scray (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you contact an admin to clean up the redirects left. --Anbu121 (talk me) 23:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Have asked for help from an admin. -- Scray (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Mischief managed. Thanks for your vigilance. How does this attract attention - NPP? Huggle? -- Scray (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Laboratory tests

Hi Scray, I posted a question Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Laboratory_tests, to which I would be grateful for your comment, if you have the time. Thanks! --NorwegianBlue ^talk 20:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you...

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		For work behind the scenes archiving the RefDesks when the bots were unable to. Matt Deres (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you, I was not alone. Much appreciated. -- Scray (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks. Good advise re "effective". There is already source-free edit warring[4] to revert my edits[5]. 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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