User talk:ISB22

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Unconventional2 (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third day in a row that you have tried to add unacceptable content and had it reverted. If you do so again you risk sanctions being taken against you, for example you may find yourself blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ISB22. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I guess a lot of us owe you an apology for assuming you were one of the pseudoscience brigade. The EHS article has been under determined attack from them recently and you got caught in the crossfire. I have chipped in to your conversation with with Bradv and suggested a safer home for your draft while it is worked on. Let me know if I can help in any other way, Wikipedia can be a noisy and daunting place for the newcomer. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's very gracious of you, thanks! Yes, I do feel rather daunted. I think my original draft has been rejected..... Is this correct? Or should I keep going with it? Am now trying to get some edits into what is there currently.ISB22 (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected initially because it does not meet our editing standards. Much of that can be fixed, it remains to be seen how much. Currently there is a discussion on whether to delete it, based on the mistaken presumption of pseudoscience (I have stashed a copy away safely in case that happens before we finish this conversation). It would be safest to create something called a "user page", under your own user account here, to hold and improve it. I just remembered we have a feature called a sandbox page for this purpose, so I can easily move it to User:ISB22/sandbox for you. You should already see a link to it in your topmost menu bar. Hopefully we can take things from there. Would that be OK? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that would be helpful. I have written edits to the current page, below, but I am assuming that the original entry I wrote has been revived? If so, all of what I have just written could be moved there as well? Thank you!ISB22 (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your draft as it stood to your sandbox, I hope you can now see it in there. The best way to add the material below is to:

1. Click the [edit] link to the section below.
2. Highlight and copy [Ctrl + C] the text to be moved.
3. Click the link to your Sandbox.
4. Click the Edit tab in the tab bar above the page.
5. Click where you want the text to go and paste it in [Ctrl + V].
6. Enter an edit comment in the field below the page
7. Click the Save changes button.

You can then tidy up this page if you like. I'll keep an eye out and try to help with any fiddly stuff, please don't be afraid to drop me a line, but sometimes I may be asleep and will take time to respond. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps. Done...I have placed the text under the list of references, below a line of stars. Getting there!ISB22 (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that until you've got the hang of this Wikipedia business, you're safer sticking to the Talk page. If you discuss any proposed edits and let someone else put them in the article should they achieve consensus, you're much less likely to end up tagged as a pseudoscience pusher and given the bum's rush. You seem like a nice person so this is friendly advice for you from an old hand. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I really appreciate this message, and your advice. I was wondering whether this would be a safer and more sensible way to continue. It sure does take some getting the hang of! But I did realise last night that you probably have a lot of different sorts logging in.....so am ready for a slower pace, under guidance17:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)ISB22 (talk)!

I think this needs to be moved to theISB22 (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Sandbox. Is this something I do, or you?[reply]

ISB22 (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)I will add some material from other non-provocation studies.[reply]

ISB22 (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Professor Belpomme published research on blood samples that found both heat shock proteins (HSPs) and histamine levels were markedly altered in a highly significant proportion of those tested, in comparison to the control group. Heat shock proteins are large molecules containing amino acids that react adversely to heat, light and radiation.[reply]

Professor Belpomme and his team used a new diagnostic technique for testing that combines the Pulsed Eco-Doppler – a specialized ultrasound machine - with a computer to reveal brain perfusion (blood circulation) levels.

The results show that people with EHS/EFI have a reduced perfusion in the brain, mostly in the limbic area, compared to the control group. He points out that sufficient circulation to the limbic area is important as it controls the main body functions. However it is also likely that these effects would produce changes in the endocrine and hormonal systems, thus influencing mood and behavior. Professor Belpomme’s team also showed that dosage of histamine, of proteins S100B and of heat shock proteins HSP70- and HSP27 in the blood were significantly altered in sufferers from EHS. Changes rose and fell according to exposure.

They were able to conclude that these symptoms amount to “a real physical illness, like cancer or heart disease”. As a result of these findings, Professor Belpomme prefers to use the term: “Electromagnetic Field Intolerance Syndrome – EFI Syndrome”.

Ref: Rev Environ Health. 2015;30(4):251-71. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2015-0027. Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder. Belpomme D, Campagnac C, Irigaray P.

Another study found that "Our results identified laboratory signs of thyroid dysfunction, liver dysfunction and chronic inflammatory processes in small but remarkable fractions of EHS sufferers as potential sources of symptoms that merit further investigation in future studies".Ref: Bioelectromagnetics. 2009 May;30(4):299-306. doi: 10.1002/bem.20486. Blood laboratory findings in patients suffering from self-perceived electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). Dahmen N1, Ghezel-Ahmadi D, Engel A.

Other scientists found that simultaneous recordings of heart rate variability, microcirculation and electric skin potentials are used for classification of EHS, and that therefore it could be possible to distinguish "genuine" electromagnetic hypersensitive individuals from those who suffer from other conditions.Ref: Electromagn Biol Med. 2013 Sep;32(3):281-90. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2012.712586. Epub 2013 Jan 9. Hypothesis on how to measure electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Tuengler A1, von Klitzing L.

Another group found that: "Altogether, results on MCS and EHS strengthen our proposal to adopt this blood metabolic/genetic biomarkers’ panel as suitable diagnostic tool for SRI". Ref: Metabolic and Genetic Screening of Electromagnetic Hypersensitive Subjects as a Feasible Tool for Diagnostics and Intervention, Mediators of Inflammation Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 924184, 14 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/924184 Chiara De Luca, Jeffrey Chung Sheun Thai, Desanka Raskovic, Eleonora Cesareo, Daniela Caccamo, Arseny Trukhanov, and Liudmila Korkina1,

Are these acceptable? Some further guidance on what is acceptable would be welcomed!

ISB22 Is this the study you are referencing? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26613326 Unconventional2 (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Related: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎#...biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity... --Guy Macon (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, the answer to your question about the Belpomme study is: yes!ISB22 (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ISB22 Have you read this study? Could you explain how you have concluded that it is a well conducted reliable study?Unconventional2 (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question: is a secondary source an article reviewing a certain study or studies? Do they need to be used as well as, or instead of primary sources? ISB22 (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The detailed answer is given by

WP:MEDRS

.

By the way, if you want a plain separator I would recommend a horizontal rule as in Wikitext stars become bullet points in a list. Use a few hyphens like this: ---- to get this:

Otherwise you can start it with a section heading or subheading using equals signs like this ===Demo subheading=== to give this:

Demo subheading

which will appear in the Table of Contents.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Belpomme's abstract states that; "Since 2009, we have prospectively investigated, clinically and biologically, 1216 consecutive EHS and/or MCS self-reporting cases." There is a problem here in that these cases are all self-reported and there is no clinical assessment of the likelihood that the diagnosis might prove mistaken, with some other more conventional disorder underlying the sufferer's symptoms. Belpomme assumes later in the abstract that these are genuine cases of EHS/MCS, but a fellow Wikipedian who has read the paper through says that this is not supported by the methodology. All it really tells us is that sufferers exhibiting certain symptoms are likely to also exhibit certain physiological abnormalities. The fact that they self-diagnose as one disorder or another is unrelated to the clinical findings. Sorry to disappoint, but this does illustrate why sources which review many such papers are so essential in establishing verifiable facts. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a few tips to help with your editing:

There is no need to sign content edits with four tildes, only use them when you are discussing something, typically on a talk page such as this one.

One reason edits can disappear is if you have not entered an edit summary in the field below the main editing panel. Wikipedia flashes up a second chance to do so and it can be easy to mistake this for a successful edit. Edit summaries are useful as they help people to track the change history of the page. If you click the View history tab at the top of this page you will see listed all the edits together with their summaries.

When you write something like, "These studies point to the likelihood of ...", you will need to cite a source which says that they do. To make such a deduction yourself counts as "original research" and is not allowed on Wikipedia. This is because it is an encyclopedia of the world's current knowledge, not a place to post new findings. See

There is a Welcome post at the top of this page, with links to more such explanations as to how things work and where to find stuff. It was posted there for your benefit and I can recommend that you spend a little time looking through it all.

As a matter of detail, one can argue that the studies suggest rather that people suffering from conditions like hypoglycaemia sometimes mistakenly self-diagnose their condition as EHS, and indeed this is how mainstream medical opinion would view these results. This again highlights the need to support such remarks by citing reliable sources which endorse the inference claimed.

Hope this helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does help, thanks. I couldn’t see the Welcome post, but I’ll have another look. I now understand about primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Re hypoglycemia and EHS, both can only be diagnosed through blood tests, but they can’t be confused because in hypogl only insulin shows up, and in EHS heat shock protein changes and other changes to blood perfusion to the brain, which I have already written up in my sandbox, where I have quoted from a secondary source rather than the study.ISB22 (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed you answered a question within the post of another user at
  ping}} me ({{ping|Jbhunley}}) from any talk page. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 19:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If I go to your talk page, I don't know where to post a reply or question. There's whole lot of stuff there that goes on forever.... but thank you all the same. I have printed a lot of stuff off and will take home to read. CheersISB22 (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"These studies point to the likelihood of diagnosis of EHS is similar to that of a condition such as hypoglycemia, where symptoms can only be verified through blood testing." Diagnosis is the key, who is diagnosing people with ESD? From what I see these are mostly people that have self diagnosed as having the condition. To verify the diagnosis is fairly simple, just subject them to the supposed trigger (say a cellphone or Wi-Fi router) that the subject can't tell if it is on or off. Then you can see if the symptoms occur concurrently with the device being on, or if they just occur randomly. These studies have been done and have shown no correlation be tween symptoms and device activation. Unconventional2 (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are other forms that a positive result could take. It could be that the symptoms only appear after the supposed trigger has been on for a while and take a while to go away. Think sunburn. Symptoms commonly labeled "ESD" -- or any other symptom --have never been shown to be caused by electromagnetic fields even when you test for delayed results. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that EHS does exist, how would you suggest I go about contributing positively to the current entry?ISB22 (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is the sticking point. As far as mainstream medical authorities such as the World Health Organization are concerned, EHS is not a recognised diagnosis - as a medical condition it does not in fact exist and represents a misdiagnosis. Wikipedia's article on

mobile phones affect our physiology but whether that is harmful remains open to new findings. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Re self reporting in the Belpomme study, I believe that from the source I quoted from and wrote, up, the blood changes rose and fell according to exposure. However I’m starting to see where you’re coming from. I can see that interpreting an original source such as a study could be a subjective or skewed towards a desired result. This happens all the time in industry-funded research! I do have a secondary source about the Belpomme study - have already quoted from in my entry, it shoul.d be from another person, I'm guessing. ISB22 (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If by "EHS does exist" you mean "some people have something wrong with them which they falsely claim is caused by electromagnetic fields" then your contributions are welcome, and best accomplished by proposing changes on the article talk page to see if you can get a consensus for them. If, as I suspect, by "EHS does exist" you mean "some people have something wrong with them which is caused by electromagnetic fields" then Wikipedia has no place for your contributions -- they are pseudoscientific bullshit. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite true. Wikipedia has no place for inadequately-sourced pseudoscience, that much is true, but your properly-sourced proposals, on whatever topic, are of course most welcome. Many beginners learn their way round by tidying up spelling, grammar and formatting in stuff written by other editors, before gaining the expertise and confidence to create their own content. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From website CEP: French researchers have just shown that Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) does notably modify blood and grain physiology in ES people, and that the impact on those biological markers rises and falls with intensity of the exposure. “We do know with certainty that Electrohypersensitivity is not psychosomatic”, tells us Oncologist Pr. Belpomme in a telephone interview. “EMFs do trigger major effects in the brain. The most important effect is the opening of the blood-brain barrier. This allows mercury, organochlorates and other toxics to pervade through the brain, where they cause diverse ailments and neurodegenerative diseases.” Pr Belpomme records having 20 new patients per week.

Here is a secondary source: An Oncology Professor at Paris Descartes University, Pr. Belpomme is president of the Association for Therapeutic Research Against Cancer (french acronym ARTAC, artac.info), which shifted to cancer prevention from 2004 on. Since may 2008, his team studies what he named Electromagnetic Fields Intolerance Syndrome (french acronym SICEM). “I have 450 patients and I see up to 20 new patients each week, including children with headaches, memory loss, attention or language troubles. We have the biggest cluster in Europe of electrosensitive patients. This is a major problem in public health.”

French researchers have just shown that Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) does notably modify blood and grain physiology in ES people, and that the impact on those biological markers rises and falls with intensity of the exposure. “We do know with certainty that Electrohypersensitivity is not psychosomatic”, tells us Oncologist Pr. Belpomme in a telephone interview. “EMFs do trigger major effects in the brain. The most important effect is the opening of the blood-brain barrier. This allows mercury, organochlorates and other toxics to pervade through the brain, where they cause diverse ailments and neurodegenerative diseases.” Pr Belpomme records having 20 new patients each week, including children with headaches, memory loss, attention or language troubles. We have the biggest cluster in Europe of electrosensitive patients. This is a major problem in public health.” Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).http://www.electrosmogprevention.org/public-health-alert/wifi-dangers/wifi-emfs-electrosensitivity-es-ehs-physiologically-explained-at-last/</ref>

Dr Peter French, head of microbiology at St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney showed in vitro the same blood cell changes as Belpomme 16 years ago under exposure from cellphone microwaves.ISB22 (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)ISB22 (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments? ISB22 (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To put it diplomatically, the CEP blog is not regarded as reliable for medical information and so fails

WP:MEDRS. For example the author's name is not given and there is no evidence of medical competence. More bluntly, it is a blatant advocacy site and wholly biased towards "woo!" scare stories. No deal there, sorry. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Am not surprised at this. However, not having ever had to look for a secondary source before, you might like to point me in the direction of what you regard as a good secondary source. Do you mean, for example, an article from Time magazine or something? Or a scientific review a science journal? Thanks for your help. ISB22 (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDRS will also help you to understand which such sources are regarded as reliable by Wikipedia, they do need to be regarded as reputable by mainstream medicine.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, should I to continue to write a replacement article, or to attempt to get the current one somewhat modified? If so, will I try and merge the two, or will someone else??ISB22 (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting a replacement article would probably get you blocked from editing, I was only able to save you the first time because you were too new to know that. Your first step is to find an adequate source. Id suggest that the best thing to do next would be to return to Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity and suggest a change, based only on what can be verified from that source, but you do need to wait for that source first.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: a comment that the study was invalid due to the fact that all those tested were self-reported EHS. However one would not test for hypoglycemia if the person was not experiencing any symptoms.ISB22 (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The symptoms are real and the suffering and hypoglycaemia genuine, nobody disputes that. The point is, lots of well-established conditions can have these effects. No mainstream doctor would diagnose EHS, they would look for those other, established conditions. The link to electromagnetism originated only in the patient's imagination and has no clinical foundation. Belpomme failed to understand this and took the patient's word for it, a step which doctors are trained not to do because it is unscientific and patients can believe all kinds of crazy stuff.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder about your reference to this work as "scary". Why is an objective clinical study scary? Perhaps it would be a good idea to be scared. If someone is standing in the middle of the road, and a truck is approaching, one would be irresponsible not to start yelling for them to move. Not acting on 'scary' can get one into deep trouble, including death. Viz climate change. People were not scared. well, people are becoming scared now, and its too late. This is just simply true, no point in running away because its scary.ISB22 (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The study is not especially scary, though Belpomme's abstract does its best to frighten people over the dangers of EHS/MCS. But I was referring to the fact that the CEP blog is full of scare stories. There is no attempt at even-handedness, not one post which treats EM as benign. "Scare stories", as I and most of the world use the term, are put out with intent to scare, whether or not the topic is inherently scary. Acting on 'scary' when it is not appropriate is called superstition and is all too common in the world - thanks for nothing, CEP. I spent a good many years as an electromagnetics engineer. Various of my colleagues suffered a near-miscarriage, cataract and cancer. The near-miscarriage was not after all due to monitor radiation but to bad posture hour after hour, the cataract was down to microwave heating before the thermal effects were known, and the cancer to the cooling oils used in high-power installations. We know that the EM from mobile phones affects the brain at a physiological level, but then so too do things like sunny days and transcranial magnetic stimulation and there is strong evidence that EM does no damage in the short term, although the longer term remains unclear and studies continue. If Belpomme's framing narrative could focus on this aspect of his work, his papers would be better received, as I think there is real value in what he is doing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Have a look at this, in the meantime. https://beingelectrosensitive.blogspot.gr/2016/08/a-story-of-ehs-and-accepting-loss.html - one of thousands.ISB22 (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has exactly the same issue as CEP, doesn't it. A pre-determined belief that the prevailing view is wrong and an invitation for supporting stories. It fails

policies and guidelines and your time will be better spent elsewhere. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I am posting to let you know that real people are prepared to go public about their problems. Here are more real people: https://wearetheevidence.org/ ISB22 (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC). I am also learning a lot, so let's regard this as a mutual learning process for the moment.[reply]

The only thing I am learning is that you are not listening. I cannot help you if you do not listen. What part of "these sources fail

WP:MEDRS and Wikipedia will not touch them with a bargepole" do you not understand? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

It is quite striking that people have been working in close proximity to much stronger electromagnetic fields than anybody is likely to experience in a home, even near a high tension line, and yet epidemiology has failed to show any cause for concern. Pretty much everything else that's going on in a power station is a higher risk than the magnetic fields, it seems. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC) [BEng (hons) MIET][reply]

I question whether a secondary source (review or paper) is more objective or independent than a primary resource such as original research. Either is open to interpretation one way or the other. However the person most able to give an accurate picture of the science is the (independent) scientist himself. Thus the current medical view that EHS is psychosomatic is a default position. There is no evidence that EHS is a psychosomatic illness, but there is plenty of evidence that exposure can cause it. I have consulted with several scientists about this as a standard practice, and it is not. If such a resource means the World Health Organisation, please note that the Director General - Emilie van Deventer - is an ex-industry employee who also has NO MEDICAL CREDENTIALS. I don't accept that a secondary source is needed for EHS - indeed many other wiki pages I have looked at are totally deficient in references of any sort, having "citation needed' in []. It is censorship by people with no medical credentials.ISB22 (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made changes to my edits in the Sandbox, but I can't find any indications on how to insert ref numbers in the text, Harvard ref style. Can you instruct?ISB22 (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The basic scheme is to insert <ref> ... </ref> tags around each inline citation (note the forwards slash in the closing tag). Then, at the end of the article, add a section containing the reflist template, something like this:

      ==Citations==
      {{reflist}}

More about the ins and outs of different citation styles, etc. are given at

WP:REF

.

By the way, what we individually think about primary vs. secondary sources is immaterial. We have to obey the consensus rules set out in

WP:MEDRS

and in related policy and guideline pages, or gain consensus to change those rules. Every time you make an edit, you accept Wikipedia's terms of use - next time you edit something, note the small print between the editing pane and the Save Changes button.

Hope this helps— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have read the relevant material, but my question remains: why this does not apply to all entries, or indeed all countries? There are articles on the same subject in another country that is complete different. I have got as near as I can to fixing the refs, and look forward to the just and fair conclusion to add the edit. Many many thanks:))ISB22 (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited your draft to give an example of how the citations are embedded inline and how the reflist template is used to position the displayed list, I hope this helps. However, I do not think that your sources will be acceptable, for reasons long discussed - remember, the Belpomme paper was specifically discussed elsewhere and rejected; the discussion is preserved here. Consequently the content is nowhere near ready for inclusion in the live article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought I had done the ones in the text myself - its only ones at the end that I cannot figure. If you can fix that would be very kind. Re the Belpomme, he is not alone in my entry - did you miss this?! Also you have not answered my questions about the fact that this subject is being censored - due to the different attitudes displayed to different subjects. The reference to treatment with CBT in the current entry is totally unscientific - there is zero evidence for this as an effective modality. Not primary, not secondary, not tertiary. This notion has been plucked out of thin air by a psychologist/s and cannot, under any circumstances be taken seriously. This is very insulting and blatantly wrong and immoral. In my eyes, Wikipedia is starting to look fraudulent and inconsistent - certainly not interested in being a true representative of the truth, or even a balanced view. ISB22 (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's better if you learn to do it for yourself. look more closely at the raw text for one I did: the whole reference goes inline and is not given any number. There is no typed list in the raw text: the list will be generated by Wikipedia from the individual tagged entries throughout the article. When the edit is saved it is replaced at that position by a number and the detail, with that same number identifying it, appears like magic as an entry in the auto-generated list where the reflist template was placed. Do not type any reference ID numbers, they are all created automatically. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, easy. Thank you! Given my points about CBT having zero cred as a health source, and that other entries in wiki abide by much more lax rules, I think you must agree that it would be fair to consider this ready for adding. With many thanks.ISB22 (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ISB22:You would do better to suggest improving those other articles, increasing there standards than to suggest that we lower the quality and or standards of this one!Unconventional2 (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The standard of the current EHS is very low indeed. There is very little truth in it, which is disgraceful and shameful.ISB22 (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed.

WP:OTHER explains that other articles are not necessarily a guide to improving things. If they are as you say they are then they need fixing not copying. You have been repeatedly advised that Belpomme is not an acceptable source, so it's no use trying sophistry to slip it through, you will most likely pull down sanctions on yourself instead. Cut it out. Nobody has looked closely at your other two sources, but after a superficial glance I honestly don't hold out much hope for them either. Please consider this fair and, most likely, final warning from an experienced Wikipedian. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 23:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

You STILL have not explained why you cite CBT as a way of dealing with EHS, suggesting EHS is psychosomatic, when there is no evidence of any sort suggesting that this is true. I have supplied ample scientific evidence to the contrary - which has been accepted in other countries on Wiki - and still you say you don't want it. For some reason, you want to stick with what has been written regardless of the objective truth. Not acceptable, in my book. It does not fit with my aspirations of a moral, sane and healthy world. This week's Guardian Weekly has an article by George Monbiot that cites Wikipedia as being an example of the new 'Commons', ie owned and used by everybody. Well, in this case I will assume that I also am part of this 'Commons'. Thanks.ISB22 (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted my edits, according to my rights as a member of society, and it has been taken down. Please do not do this, what are you afraid of? Why can't this material go up????????????

You can't say I didn't warn you. See what happens when you ignore my advice. I'm outta here now, no point wasting my effort on the wilfully deaf. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

W.O.M.B.A.T.

This has clearly become a W.O.M.B.A.T. (Waste Of Money, Brains, And Time), so I am unwatching this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The

discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here

.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]