BruceSwanson

Welcome!

Hello, BruceSwanson! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! DanielRigal (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Talk page use

Hi Bruce. The idea of a talk page is that people use it to send you messages and you can reply. It is probably a bad place to write a draft of a new article as that will get mixed up with the messages making it harder to publish the article once you are ready to do so. This is fairly easy to tidy up. What you should do is make a separate user subpage for each new draft article you want to work on. User subpages are still accessible to other users so you can invite people to help with your draft article. You can use the "move" option to make them into real articles when you are ready. They even keep their history. Here is what to do:

1. Click this link to make a new user subpage for your draft article: User:BruceSwanson/Inventing the Aids Virus
2. Edit this talk page and copy the part that corresponds to your draft article into the new subpage. Copy the source (with all the Wiki markups) so that you don't lose all your formatting and links.
3. Save the new subpage and make sure it looks OK. Make sure to put it on your watchlist or bookmark it so that you can get back to it in future.
4. Remove the the part that corresponds to your draft article from this talk page.

If you like, I can do this for you. I didn't do it without asking because it is considered impolite to rearrange other people's user and talk pages without permission.

Finally, I see that Inventing the AIDS Virus is currently redirected. You will need to ask for the redirect to be deleted to make way for your new article. Wait until the new article is ready before you do that. Such deletions are a formality and won't take long. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Re Article

Thanks for the advice. I've moved the article to the subpage. I'll be posting it soon. Bruce Swanson 18:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

No worries, always a delight when a new contributor can create well-written and well-referenced content. In hindsight I agree with Hamiltonstone about changes to be made before it's moved to mainspace.

I see you're a professional copy editor, which is great; Wikipedia never seems to have enough people with the inclination and competence to review others' writing, and you've surely noticed poor prose around the place. You might be interested in the Guild of Copy Editors. You might also be interested in this page created by User:Tony1, also a professional editor, who's seeking feedback about it. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll give them a look. Thanks for the tip. Bruce Swanson 13:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Combining Deusberg Hypothesis with Inventing the AIDS Virus

The trial page is here

DYK for Inventing the AIDS Virus

On April 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Inventing the AIDS Virus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for this one Victuallers (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. It jumped the page-count by 54, as of now.

Sig and other issues

Please fix your signature so it includes a link to, at the very least, your talk page. You can do this in Special:Preferences. See WP:SIG for guidelines about signatures.

Also, your contributions to the DYK project are being discussed at WT:DYK#Editor rejecting many DYK nominations. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

April, 2010

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Peter Duesberg. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, my deletion wasn't intended as vandalism or an experiment. I think your remarks were inappropriate for a Talk page, but I have no further interest in them. BruceSwanson (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Please review the talk page guidelines then.

My remarks are not inappropriate. Duesberg's hypothesis is pseudoscience, the scientific consensus is that it is nonsense. At wikipedia we give due weight to the scholarly majority. We are obliged to treat Duesberg's ideas as nonsense, not as a valid, competing hypothesis. That is the reality of wikipedia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia and advocacy

Please don't mistake Wikipedia for an appropriate venue to advocate AIDS denialism. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The reliable sources state that HIV is infectious and the cause of AIDS. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You wrote: "Please don't mistake Wikipedia for an appropriate venue to advocate AIDS denialism." Exactly to what are you referring? Please be specific. BruceSwanson (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Peter Duesberg is an AIDS denialist. His research and opinions are seen as clear, unambiguous AIDS denialism. Any effort to portray his work as having any merit is soapboxing (promoting, advocating for a position) for a wrong (as well has actively harmful) idea about the causes of AIDS. Duesberg's ideas can be briefly summarized, accompanied by an immediate juxtaposition of the scientific consensus, plus any specific statements about where he is wrong and why. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the user's recent edits and comments concerning HCV, I suspect that the soapboxing extends beyond mere HIV denialism. Do viruses exist at all? There are websites where such suspicions can be discussed and debated. Wikipedia is not one of them. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My edits and comments concern the purported HCV image, not the virus itself. But to answer your question Do viruses exist at all? Yes, they do. As for my alleged "soapboxing", presumably you will be as specific in your examples as you were, above, about my using Wikipedia as a venue for "AIDS denialism". BruceSwanson (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

Please review the talk page guidelines. In particular, please thread your posts. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly to what are you referring? Please be specific. BruceSwanson (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You should specifically read the guidelines I pointed to, and the page on conversational threading. I was particularly referring to when you post on talk pages, please add one leading colon to the left margin of each post you make, so it is easy to tell who said what, when, without having to check the datestamp for each post. This is known as conversational threading and is common practice throughout the web and on wikipedia talk pages. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Do not edit archives

Please do not edit archives as you did here. Archives are for historical purpose and should not be modified. Further, no-one will notice your comment since editors do not monitor archives (they are normally maintained by bot accounts). I have undone your change. If you have a concern, bring it up on the talk page. However, regarding the Hep C image issue, it appears that no-one else believes your objections have merit, so I would suggest not bothering. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead sections

Note that per WP:LEAD, citations are not necessarily required in the lead so long as they are provided in the body. The section in the lead is now over-cited, but also expanded. In the future, please only tag information like that if it's genuinely not in the body. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Advocacy

In light of your recent editing, please remember that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for advocacy, such as the promotion of fringe theories including AIDS denialism. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I shall try to remember that. Please do the same. BruceSwanson (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Except, of course, KCCO isn't selectively removing 404 references that are trivial to relocate and replace, and doesn't have a history of rejecting the well-established mainstream opinion on HIV, nor an anti-science screed on his talk page. Civil POV-pushing is still POV-pushing and is still looked down upon. Fringe theories and nonsense like AIDS denialism are at an enormous disadvantage on wikipedia, deliberately. Because otherwise people would abuse the open editing format to push all sorts of nonsense and we'd end up looking like this piece of garbage. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this comment, and this board posting, note that wikipedia takes a very dim view of meatpuppetry and encouraging like-minded people to try to swamp the pages. All that will happen is a page lock, series of blocks, and chances are your editing privileges will be suspended. The issue also isn't one of "those big meanies on wikipedia won't listen to our Brave Truth." The problem is, you're on the wrong side. HIV causes AIDS. That's an established fact, with a shitload of evidence that AIDS denialists resent and try to either ignore or downplay. Your beliefs about HIV and AIDS are simply wrong, and you should accordingly cease editing the related pages. There are debates within the scientific community about AIDS - but they're not about whether it exists and whether it is caused by HIV. Wikipedia won't change until the scientific community changes their mind - and unless some very surprising evidence shows up, that's unlikely to happen. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Email address

Hi Bruce,

Apologies for editing your user page, but I noticed you had your email address written in plain text. That's risky, as there are robots that crawl the web looking for email addresses to add to their evil masters' spam lists. The template I applied hides your address from these robots. Wikipedia's article on the topic is Address munging.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)