User talk:DavidRCrowe

Welcome!

Hello, DavidRCrowe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Roguegeek (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Roguegeek;

Thanks for the welcome message, I hope that you'll respond to my message regarding the editing of this page. I'd rather work cooperatively but cannot let stand information that is erroneous and potentially libellous.

DavidRCrowe 15:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libellous?[edit]

Please substantiate your claim that material on Christine Maggiore could be potentially libellous. The article is extremely well sources to reliable external sources and as such is simply an analysis of external reporting. I look forward to your response.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please take a look at Wikipedia's policy regarding legal threats. In general, such claims are strongly frowned upon and can under some circumstances result in blocking. If you feel that you have serious libel concerns your best avenue for resolving them may be OTRS. JoshuaZ 05:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With or without libel concerns, simply removing content from an article as shown in this instance could be considered vandalism, which could also result in blocking. For more information on vandalism and how Wikipedia defines it, please see the policy page on vandalism. Thanks. Roguegeek (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of the Wiki states "Maggiore had not taken medication to prevent transmission of HIV to her daughter". This implies that Maggiore negligently allowed the death of her daughter to occur. This may be libellous unless you can prove that transmission of HIV can occur. You cannot prove that unless you can prove that particles of HIV are present in people, which means that purification of HIV is necessary. And purification of HIV has never been accomplished.

I have offered to work cooperatively on this page. However, in order to do this I insist that the entire document less the first paragraph be deleted, and the document be added back paragraph by paragraph as we can agree on the facts.

I am not making legal threats. The contents of this page have already been captured and will be used as evidence in court to illustrate the type of online harassment that Christine Maggiore is suffering. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know what the liability of the current writers of the article might be.

If you will agree to take down the current content and go through it carefully until we can all agree (with myself representing Christine Maggiore's interest) then I think we can work cooperatively. I am quite happy to provide references for most statements that I make (although it's not possible to provide a reference proving that purification of HIV has never happened, it is the responsibility of people who claim that HIV particles exist to provide this, something that has not been done). In previous postings I did provide links to external websites that provides summaries of the scientific evidence that drugs to prevent "mother to child transmission" are extremely dangerous. I can provide the direct scientific references if necessary, although that may expand this page significantly.

If I do not get satisfaction at this level I will obvious have to appeal to higher levels within the wiki hierarchy. I don't know my way around Wikipedia very well right now, but I'm sure I can find out. DavidRCrowe 15:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entire sentence reads, "Maggiore had not taken medication to prevent transmission of HIV to her daughter, as she does not believe that HIV causes AIDS." This makes it clear that her decision was based on her belief system, not on negligence per se; the article also makes clear that Maggiore has not been charged with negligence. The existence of HIV, its pathogenicity, and its transmissibility perinatally or via breast milk are all established by scientific consensus; you don't have to agree, but it hardly seems libelous to discuss something that is widely accepted as a scientific fact.

You're welcome to "capture" the document, although all prior versions are readily available in the page history. The article does present Maggiore's side of the situation, and includes links to the "Justice for E.J." site (which you apparently maintain), as well as Celia Farber's article in CityBeat.

Again, no one has any desire to libel anyone. However, the example you cite is a description of Maggiore's actions and rationale as described in the L.A. Times article. The argument that it's libellous because you believe the scientific consensus on HIV to be incorrect seems dubious, although I'm also not a lawyer. Are there other instances where you feel the article is defamatory or libellous?

Again, we're happy to work with you, but clearly you haven't really offered to "work cooperatively"; you've basically said it has to be your way or else. As far as higher levels of the hierarchy, they are detailed in Dispute Resolution if you're interested. If you have concerns about libel which are not being addressed to your satisfaction, JoshuaZ's suggestion of contacting the Wikipedia Front Office is a good one, as this is many steps up the hierarchy. They can be contacted here. ---- MastCell 17:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I offered to take the page offline and work on it cooperatively until it was mutually acceptable. That way nothing that was unacceptable or potentially legally troublesome would be public. However, in the absence of an agreement to do that, I will start editing it a paragraph at a time, based as closely as I can on Wiki principles, although I'm just learning. I will try to clearly explain every edit. DavidRCrowe 22:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added the information about HIV drugs and testing. It is well sourced to a reliable and verifiable source. It is a repeat of what is published there and therefore it is not possible to claim it is libellous (it is just reporting what someone else said). It is also written in a neutral manner so any implications come from a reader's prior beliefs and not from the sentence itself.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Localzuk -- Please provide a reference that the reason that Christine Maggiore did not take drugs to "prevent the transmission of HIV" was because she does not believe that HIV causes AIDS. Please provide a reference that drugs "prevent the transmission of HIV" (at best they reduce it). Please provide a reference that the transmission of HIV can be detected through references showing that the gold standard of HIV, virus purification has even been achieved. Please also summarize why this sentence belongs in a paragraph describing the circumstances of Eliza Jane's death. Note that this current wording strongly implies that Christine caused her daughter's death. I note that the inclusion of "potentially libellous" material is forbidden by Wiki rules. DavidRCrowe 23:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have altered the link between the not taking a drug and her belief that AIDS was not linked to HIV to reflect the source accurately. It is now a direct quote from page 2 of the article. The 'prevent the transmission' bit I will change to reduce the possibility of transmission per page 3 of the article.

Next regarding your other request - there is no need to provide any references regarding the detection of HIV as it is not stated in the sentence. The fact that she did not test the child is included in the article - the article goes further to say that the doctor believed that if she had been tested then the death would not have happened.

The information is in the lead per our guidelines on introductory sections - namely, the intro should provide enough information to describe the entire article in a couple of paragraphs. There is no implications other than those which you read into things as far as I can see. Do not remove the information again as several editors have now asked you not to. Please discuss further if you still disagree with it being included.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AAEM[edit]

If you are the David Crowe who runs the Justice for E.J. website, I wanted to mention something that's been bothering me - the page includes testimonial from Dr. Harold Buttram, who is listed as a "Fellow of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine". This was surprising to me, since the AAEM is a prestigious mainstream medical organization (election as a fellow is quite an honor for a ER physician) and Dr Buttram is a) not an ER doc, and b) holds a number of views that are, to put it mildly, outside the medical mainstream. Your site also links to the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (www.aaem.org), reinforcing the claim that Dr Buttram is a fellow of said Academy.

In fact, it would appear that Dr Buttram belongs to the American Academy of Environmental Medicine - same acronym, but a very different group which functions outside of the medical mainstream, and has a very different agenda. Certainly the significance of his membership is quite different. The correct website for this organization is www.aaem.com (.com, not .org). I'm sure the confusion (and the acronym overlap) is unintentional, but it might be worth correcting your website to correctly reflect Dr Buttram's credentials and to link to the correct organization. If you're not the David Crowe who runs the website, my apologies for taking up your space. MastCell 23:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated JusticeForEJ.com to correct this error. Thanks for pointing it out.

Welcome[edit]

Heh -- welcome to Wikipedia, David. You have entered an alternate Orwellian universe. GOOD LUCK! darin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.252.201.61 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Darin; Nice to have you here helping to keep me honest :) DavidRCrowe 07:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, DavidRCrowe. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, DavidRCrowe. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, DavidRCrowe. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, DavidRCrowe. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]