User talk:Jahat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Di-dehydroepiandrosterone

Hi, I noticed you removed the proposed deletion tag from Di-dehydroepiandrosterone. The problem with the article is it contains original research almost exclusively and therefore is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOR). Unless there is a verifiable media source that you can quote for your rebuttle (see WP:CITE) then they can't be there. I completely agree with you that Pherlure is nonsense. WP:V says that : "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources". Clearly Di-dehydroepiandrosterone does not fulfil that (as the pherlure claims are not relable and the rebuttle is not verifiable, and thus it should be deleted. I'm going to replace the tag, should you still disagree after this justification, feel free to remove it again. It will then go to WP:AfD and the wider community will decide. Rockpocket (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Damage control? That couldn't be further from the truth! If you look at the history, you'll notice i was the one who changed it from ridiculous claims that it a pheromone to the fact that the makers claim it is a phermone without real justification [1] [2]. I didn't delete it because i didn't realise it was a complete fraud. Now you have provided such evidence, there is no justification for it being here.

Text like:

This site claims to have archived the article about the study on Feb 7, 2005, yet a check of the registration records for the site shows that its domain was not created until Feb 10, 2005, making this supposed “archiving” impossible. A Google search of pages belonging to wondersinscience.com similarly finds that the only content is the archived article on the supposed study, and their homepage

is classic OR (even if it is entirely correct). Instead of having that in the article, it is perfect justification for deleting it. However, i accept that you contest the deletion and this i will AfD it and let the community decide. Please do not removed the AfD tag, instead follow the instructions on the tag and make your case at the appropriate place. Thanks (and well done for debunking pherlure). Rockpocket (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"There is no other place on the web that I've seen where the information about the fact that these claims are false can be found" - i'm sorry. I do have sympathy for that POV, but its perfect justification for why it should not be on wikipedia. If the information is not verifiable then it should not be here. WP is not a consumer advice site, it is an encylopaedia. There may be an argument for having an article on Pherlure as a notable hoax. But unless there is a way for you to verify your OR, it will never survive. Still, there is no guarantee it will be deleted, we'll have to see what the community says. Rockpocket (talk)

In consideration of your concern that there is no mention on wikipedia of such fake products, i added a single line the the pheromone article, making clear the difference between the valid research on human pheromones and the fraudulent claims of some manufacturers. One could argue that this is OR to, but generally the lack of clarifying evidence for something is allowed to be briefly mentioned in longer articles. Rockpocket (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If you read the section on human pheromones, it makes it clear that there is NO product that can change human behaviour. Therefore anyone reading that should realise that ALL products with such claims are fake (pherlure included, which is used as a reference, anyway). Sadly, if people are desperate or gullible enough to buy something like that without researching it first (by, for example, reading the Wikipedia article on pheromones) then they deserve to be ripped off. Its not our job to act as citizen's advice bureau, we are an encyclopaedia. Rockpocket (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources". If you can provide such sources for your assertions (such as a newspaper article debunking Pherlure) then add it to the article and i will change my vote. Until then, the article does not merit inclusion by policy. Rockpocket (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR says:

In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, 'has been published by a reputable third-party publication

Your analysis is clearly a primary source (you did the Google search and the Pubmed search). Thus for it to be verifiable you must cite a publication in a reputable third-party publication. That is what WP:V means. Not as you claim, that anyone can confirm your OR using Google or Pubmed. Clearly we are going to disagree on this. We both have had the chance to make our case at the AfD, now we wait for the community do decide. Its out of our hands. Rockpocket (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Hi Jahat, you've been reported for a 3RR violation on Di-dehydroepiandrosterone and have been temporarily blocked from editing. Although you're a new user, you continued to revert after being warned about 3RR, which is why you've been blocked. [3] If you would like to discuss this with me, you're welcome to e-mail me using the link on my user page. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)