User talk:Jytdog/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

MEDRS suggestions.

How did any of my suggestions substantially differ from the policies of no original research or reliability?

1. Extensively qualifying primary and animal model studies instead of reflexively deleting them. Secondary sources are ideal but not absolute. 2. Instead of using terms like "weak", "no good" or "good" evidence actually state the numerical benefit derived by a particular treatment compared to active or passive placebo. It is undeniable that terms like clinically/statistically significant are social conventions. This is simply reality. 3. Recognize that the currently used hierarchy of scientific journals is again a social construct with it's own particular problems. I have faced this several times where my source is denied because someone else had a "better" article from a "better" journal. It's just coincidental that their sourced article was inline with their own personal biases... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khimaris (talk • contribs) 22:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for talking, Khimaris. I appreciate your questing spirit, but Wikipedia, as it has been constructed, is not a site that will change the world; Wikipedia reflects the world. If you want to change Wikipedia so that Wikipedia will work to change the world, you need to start far deeper than MEDRS - you need to start with the very pillars of Wikipedia and work up from there. There are lots of other sites where you don't have to fight such a deep and protracted battle to write the kinds of things you want to write, right away. To answer your questions:

1. This I answer with a question. Would you please explain how extensively qualifying primary sources is not WP:OR?
2. Wikpedia is meant for the masses, for your average joe. Please see WP:TECHNICAL as well as sections 7 & 8 of this part of the 1st pillar. We therefore don't present mounds of data; we say things in plain English.
3. Yep. There is a social construct and Wikipedia is very, very solidly enmeshed in it. We describe what is as best we can, using the best sources we can find - sources produced by the best institutions that society has built to carry out the scientific method and the historical method (our best tools for grasping reality as objectively as humans can); we do not right great wrongs and we have no crystal ball.

There you go... Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It isn't original research to explicitly state the limitations of a paper that it openly states. When was the last time you read a peer reviewed article that didn't state it's own limitations?

It isn't overly technical to state something like 60% of people typically respond to a particular treatment. I can't imagine a literate person not understanding this.

Per WP:RGW I'm not engaging in activism for any particular issue. And per crystal ball I'm not engaging in unverifiable speculation. Every addition that I have made thus far has followed the stated and explicate content policies of Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I refuse to be beholden to the arbitrary foolishness of people saying, "My source is better" or "It was better before" whenever a conflict arises. I think you're learned enough to realize the extensive limitations and inherent biases of the currently existing academic hierarchy.

I think you are all misunderstanding where I'm coming from. So I'll state my biases. I'm an egalitarian transhumanist health nut and nerd who gets his flu shots every year and supports the use and deregulation of GMFs as a harm reduction strategy. I'm not afraid of science or the scientific method. I simply find the way information is being disseminated to be deeply troubling for the previously stated reasons.Khimaris (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Some of what you write is reasonable, and to be frank, some is over the top. Your intensity and urgency are making it difficult to have a rational conversation. Can you even see it? Where is that coming from? (those are both real questions about you (not about others); they are not rhetorical questions) Jytdog (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I really want to emphasize this to you, Khimaris - both the spirit and the letter of the policy, WP:RS and the guideline WP:MEDRS call us to reach first for secondary sources, read them carefully, and base content on them. You need a really good reason to work against that and rely on primary sources instead. This is a fundamental Wikipedia thing, and it does you no good, and makes you look less than credible, to blow past that, as you have been doing. When you are asked why you are going against Wikipedia's reliance on secondary sources, if you want to have a rational conversation, you need to answer positively; "why not" is a bad answer - an irrational answer - and is a sign that you have an ax to grind and are not working toward the best interest of the encyclopedia. I am not saying that you do have an ax to grind; I am describing how you are coming across. I wish you would calm down, and respond carefully and clearly as to why primary sources are justified where you want to use them. I understand that you have an issue with the spirit and letter of Wikipedia's policy on this matter, but fighting against policy when working on specific content is going to create nothing but misery for everyone involved. Nobody wants that. Jytdog (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Part of it is pride and part of it is a general disgust for the arbitrary nature of the wiki-hierarchy. I could spend a good three hours of my day happily reading pubmed, both primary and secondary sources, about some particular condition or treatment. I then make a small addition or rewording to the wikipedia article in question, that is fully inline with the various rules and regulations. In some cases the edit is reverted and I am condescended to and told to follow some rule the author pulled out of their ass. I've looked at the edit logs of these articles. It's typically the editor with the most extensive additions. They "own" the article. And they don't want their hard work that's earned them so many internet points to be changed. It's disgusting and childish.

It's hard to take consensus building seriously when the consensus is usually "Don't make significant changes my pet project". So this makes me "intense" and I "urgently" want this behavior to stop.

On the subject of primary sources: I prefer the addition of new qualified information. (Qualifying isn't original research by the way)Someone mentioned the idea of not adding primary sources at all because they are sometimes non-reproduceable. To this I say so what? The current practice of science will eventually find the right conclusion. There are enough PHDs and grad students fighting over funding to ensure this. Are you really saying that the Eventualist and Inclusionist editing tendencies are invalid and that people, like me, who subscribe to them have no place here? Khimaris (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for talking. You are clearly a smart person and you are lucky with that. And I understand your frustration with other editors - hell is other people, as they say. That of course includes me and you. From what I can gather, you appear to misunderstand a fundamental aspect of the Wikipedia mission, or perhaps, you consciously have taken a stance that you aware is outside the consensus. You don't seem to be aware that it is outside the consensus, so I am guessing it is a misunderstanding. Here it is - Wikipedia is not written for smart people with lots of time, and Wikipedia has nothing to do with "the free flow of information"; instead, this is an encyclopedia intended to present reliable information to the public (average people, who are busy), and it is written by editors who are bound by policies and guidelines. Being an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", it absolutely needs these policies and guidelines or it would be filled with mountains of bullshit and talk pages would be an ugly wasteland of irrational bickering. Under the given policies and guidelines, we work hard to curate reliable information; to present the consensus of the experts in the field on any given topic, and we try to reach consensus about content disputes by talking through things within the framework of the policies and guidelines. Rejecting the policies and guidelines is rejecting the very basis upon which we can actually be egalitarian and can cooperate rationally - they form our world. When you say "so what" to including information from primary studies - which have a high likelihood of being false and when you ignore the imperative to reach for secondary sources, you are showing that you understand none of this. Do you see that? Until you really get all that, you are going to be miserable here and continue causing friction that is really avoidable. Really. If you want to change Wikipedia, please direct your energy to changing the policies, and don't torment editors who are following those policies - in spirit and letter - in given articles, and don't get yourself all worked up over specific content where those policies and guidelines are being played out. It is as foolish as yelling at a cop who is giving you a speeding ticket, arguing that speed limits are stupid. It isn't fair to anyone, including yourself, it just makes everybody have a shitty day, and it is just a big waste of time (except perhaps for satisfying your ego). Like I said you have a questing spirit - you need to be careful to aim that energy where it can be productive. Ten years ago when I first started working in a job I now totally love, I was arguing with my wonderful boss about my perception (which I now recognize as stunningly arrogant and ignorant) of some concepts underlying what we were doing, and she said to me: "You told me you find this work interesting and want to learn how to do it. You want to play this game. So you have to learn the rules and play by them, especially when you are starting out. If you want to play some other game, go do that." Bam. Eyes opened. Changed my life. Anyway, you are free to ignore me, or to try to understand what I am telling you. But you have some fundamental misunderstandings about Wikipedia - about what we do here under current policies and guidelines. In any case, good luck to you! Jytdog (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

And when I say "work on changing policies", I mean work on changing this, which you can do by discussing it on that policy's Talk page. Not on the Talk pages of existing articles. Jytdog (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent Revert

Thanks for your kind sentiments that my attempted edit on the page Judaism was "interesting." (smile) As you may have noticed, I am relatively new here at WP, and I admit that there is still much for me to learn. In this particular case, however, there is a very fine and delicate line that must be drawn between what is defined as WP:OR, and what is merely an attempt to explain in layman's terms what has been stated explicitly in Primary Sources, but which cannot otherwise be understood without elaborating. I'm not so certain that, by expanding on a text's meaning, it falls under the category of WP:OR, as we all interject and explain in our own words the primary and secondary sources used in making articles. For example:

The Midrash Rabba (Numbers Rabba 19:3), a Primary Source, says explicitly:

אמר רבי יוחנן בשם רשב"י: כתיב ולא תתחתן בם
למה? כי יסיר את בנך מאחרי 

בנך הבא מישראלית קרוי בנך, ואין בנך הבא מן הכושית קרוי בנך, אלא בנה

(Translation: "Said Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, It is written: 'And do not consummate marriages with them' (Deut. 7:3). Why? 'For he will turn away your son from after me' (ibid.). Your son who comes from an Israelite woman is called 'your son,' but he that comes from the Negro woman is not called 'your son,' but rather her son.")

As you can see, the language used here is very terse and almost laconic. It seems, therefore, appropriate to explain its meaning to make it easier to understand. Perhaps with your advice we, together, can add a suitable footnote that explains its import. I have suggested the following:

The source from which the Sages of Israel learn that a child born from a Jewish mother is a Jew, although he might have a gentile father, is Deuteronomy 7:3. There is a prohibition against taking the Canaanites in marriage, viz., "You shall not consummate marriages with them, nor shall you give your daughter to his son or take his son for your daughter, since he will turn away your son from following me." By looking very closely and diacritically at the wording of the text, it says "...since he (the Canaanite father) will turn away your son (i.e. the child born to your Jewish daughter) from following me." Here, we see that G-d still reckons the child to be Jewish by calling him, your son - i.e., even though such unions were forbidden. G-d calls him your son, implying that he is still an Israelite because he was born from a Jewish mother. However, the opposite is not true. The Torah does not say, "...for she (the Canaanite mother) will turn away your son." In this case, the child would no longer be considered your son, but rather a gentile (cf. Yevamoth 17a; Numbers Rabba 19:3).Davidbena (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting and nicely done! But as I wrote, this is indeed WP:OR - you produced that explanation and that is strictly out of bounds. The way to handle this, is to find a scholarly, published secondary source that explains that same thing, and add a footnote with content based on that source, and cite that source. There are plenty of reliable sources discussing this issue! Jytdog (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. I accept your analysis. What would you think then if we add a short source in a footnote, quoting only the Primary Source from Midrash Rabba - without explaining its import? After all, the same WP guidelines provide for Wikipedia articles being "based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." What do you think? Davidbena (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Civility

I agree with you when you say on your User Page that Civility "is crucial for successful interactions among editors trying to write articles ... we have to work together - we have to see and acknowledge each other - to get anything good done ... civility is all about behavior -- it has nothing to do with who you are or what you believe; what matters is what you write, and how you write it. Civility is what makes this ultimate democratic space possible ... The best interactions are characterized by competence and civility ... Of the two, only one is a pillar. Civility. If editors work in a spirit that acknowledges the other's validity and one's own limitedness - if they assume good faith - a consensus can be reached, eventually. Take civility away, and there is no chance."

But I disagree with how you practice what you preach. I refer you to the Wikipedia Policy Page on Civility (shortcut WP:NICE). "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Among other things, WP:NICE says: "Try not to get too intense", " Take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy", "Be calm", "don't make snide comments", "don't make personal remarks about editors", "don't be aggressive", "no personal attacks", no "rudeness, insults, name-calling", no "belittling a fellow editor".

I quote back to you verbatim et literatim some recent remarks you'd made to me and to other editors (f.e A1candidate, Khimaris, Nigelj, TimidGuy), not only on our User Talk Pages, but also on the Talk Pages of Articles, where you yourself said they don't belong (diff). I'm certain that if I dig deeper I will find many more examples, but I think these suffice to illustrate my point (I was going to organize them according to the nature of their incivility, but there are so many (38) of them that I had to resort to mere alphabetization): 'Again, you seem very committed to not actually discussing things... strange'; 'because i run out of patience with your behavior'; 'bizarre to me'; 'create nothing but misery for everyone involved'; 'Do you see that?'; 'don't get yourself all worked up'; 'don't torment editors who are following those policies'; 'filled with mountains of bullshit'; 'I have neither time nor desire to pander to your ego here'; 'If you want to learn, ask, don't argue - ask and listen'; 'It is as foolish as'; 'just a big waste of time (except perhaps for satisfying your ego)'; 'makes you look less than credible'; 'Maybe this is some kind of sport for you'; 'not a happy sign to me of things to come should you choose to continue working on WP'; 'profoundly un-Wikipedian behavior'; 'Running to no less than two drama boards'; 'slow down and breathe'; 'So blech'; 'that is a patience-trying request'; 'that it is your idea - a newbie's idea'; 'the issue is so trivial that it is not worth trying to take up the community's time with'; 'there is a strange inability to read going around'; 'umm'; 'you appear to misunderstand a fundamental aspect of the Wikipedia mission'; 'you are going to be miserable here'; 'You are not talking, you are arguing in a legalistic manner.'; 'you are not working toward the best interest of the encyclopedia'; 'you are showing that you understand none of this'; 'you can hear me, or not! your call, naturally. good luck! '; 'you consciously have taken a stance that you aware is outside the consensus'; 'You don't seem to be aware'; 'you have an ax to grind'; 'you need to be careful to aim that energy where it can be productive'; 'You should know by now'; 'you should know that you pick your battles; good judgement is essential'; 'Your intensity and urgency are making it difficult to have a rational conversation. Can you even see it? Where is that coming from?'

I would like to discuss with you here why you think that these comments of yours meet Wikipedia's Civility requirements. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This is over the top. Not responding and am enacting WP:SHUN. I suggest you do the same. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Regarding your work on edits by Haydee Belinky, know that Ariel Fernandez had his accounts on wiki locked due to sockpuppetry. Perhaps he has a new moniker? He has used a related name for his seeming sockpuppet reviews on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Transformative-Concepts-Drug-Design-Wrapping/product-reviews/3642117910/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.185.122 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Environmental impact of pharmaceuticals and personal care products

Jytdog, Your statement that Milorganite is fertilizer is correct. However, the pharmaceutical and personal care waste stream has a very real impact on the waste stream, and is interrelated to it. I don't want to get into an edit war over relevancy, as I tend to view that as being in the eyes of the beholder. However, the readers of wikipedia could better make that decision on their own, and may not know of that facet of the problem, if it isn't in this article. The reference to the problem are in the Milorganite article (perhaps you missed that). So I am asking you to reconsider. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

p.s., you and I share much in terms of world and wikipedia viewpoint. I liked your WP:User page. I am also a proud owner of Frankfurt's book, "On Bullshit". 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

i see your point on the link - i self-reverted. nice to find a kindred spirit! :) Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. The alternative is that we could edit this directly into the text with sources. The persistence of drugs even after being filtered, eaten by microbes, aereated, and then oven-baked is a real problem, and it hardly has standards or solutions. In doing my massive editing, I learned more about Milorganite than I ever wanted to know. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	The way it's supposed to be done. The Medium Is the Massage — Marshall McLuhan. Would that we could all be so good all the time. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

I am the IP user you mentioned on the Ken Ham talk page. That is how I feel too but I didn't know how to type it. Very well said. Thank you for being part of the solution. Nicholas 107.178.45.20 (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice

Hi Jytdog just letting you know that Collect unilaterally opened an RfC Talk:Ken_Ham#RfC_by_Collect thus making your section about a new proposal somewhat irrelevant since that is surely going to attract all the attention now. I personally would've prefered discussing it in the section you opened but that's apparently not an option anymore. Just a heads up. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 02:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

yep saw it. thanks for the headsup tho. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Note

Just wanted to tell you that I saw what you posted here and that I can appreciate your attempt to try to get people thinking about the problem in a different way. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! That Talk page is a real battleground. ugh. I appreciate your efforts to reach consensus too. folks are just too busy staking their ground.... Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Human cloning

I appreciate your concern, but the entire section consists of reports from primary sources (and in a couple cases the report that it was later proven fraudulent). Indeed this is the first time anything from a previous report has been verified by a second group of scientists yet you are giving it the least weight of any report.

There is no reason to delete the details of the most recent report while leaving the details of the others. If you think some specific detail in unnecessary then remove it, but there is no need to remove the entire report. Details do not make something appear more credible - they simply provide more information. Two paragraphs out of a very long article is very little weight indeed, and similar weight as given to past reports. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewrite leaving the important details but removing the objectionable parts. It looked fine to me, but a third editor didn't like part of it, so I rewrote it again. I didn't add back anything you removed, just reworked what you left, but feel free to take another look to make sure it is fine by you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Replied on article talk. Sorry for the double message --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Nicotine

Hi Jytdog,

Would either of these sources be suitable as a secondary source?

• http://fds.duke.edu/db/Sanford/ccfp/kolli001
• http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/9/784.abstract

If so, I will add the good-faith edit to the article. Robert4565 (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking! There are 2 main sources of reliable health information - one is a review article published in the biomedical literature; the other is a statement by a major medical or scientific body (in this case, somebody like the APA or the NIH/NHS or the like). To find reviews, go to pubmed, (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed), out in your search terms, (in this case something like "ADHD "nicotine withdrawal"), click search, and then select "review" from the filter at the left. here is the result. not much there. in cases like this, i do not think it is wise to add this content now - we need to wait and see if it holds up. the reason for this is explained in MEDRS but it boils down to biology - human biology in particular - being very tricky, and what one primary source says is true, another will say is not true... we need experts in the field to write reviews to sort this out for us. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

sorry i didn't directly respond to your question - no, neither of those are reliable secondary sources under MEDRS.... Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For removing "hype". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Excellent post on MEDRS board with the references to the coffee articles in the NYTimes! One of best comments I've seen in quite some time. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Stem cell research and human cloning

Thank you for your recent efforts in clarifying the human cloning-related news. These kinds of situations arise once in a while because, when fine scientific/legal/political details are involved, misunderstandings are almost a cetainty for the average reader. In this case the image was further obscured by PR language. As a result, human-cloning was implied in the news item even though no DNA copying happened. When I first read it, I vaguely suspected that there was some distortion involved, because I know that science can be really difficult to be "dumbed down". After I read the corrected version, I was really happy to see that someone took the extra mile and showed the editors how to be less vague. Then I read the discussion. No DNA copying? This is not a distortion, it's a corruption of the communication signal. Thanks again for you efforts! Nxavar (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your kind note! science writing is hard and i do appreciate the efforts of the ITN team to make WP go... it takes everybody. Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thank you for taking the time to reach out to me today. It is highly appreciated.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

you are welcome. i don't like to see everybody suffer so much. WP doesn't have to suck! Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Question about Wiki

You're very knowledge about Wiki and I wanted to know if you could tell me what a notification saying someone reviewed your user means?Hardkhora (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

it means nothing - see User_talk:Tryptofish#hello. :) Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you a lot, that cleared that up. "...there was a little blue link at the bottom right corner of the page saying, "Mark this page as patrolled". I clicked it, and that's what gave you the notification."Hardkhora (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents report on Jytdog

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Link to Incident Report LeoRomero (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The distance from Harvard University to Boston

I noticed that you've reverted {{convert|3|mi|0}} to {{convert|3|mi|km}} on Harvard University. I'm not sure why since "approximately 3 miles (5 km)" seems better than "approximately 3 miles (4.8 km)" as we are talking about an approximate distance. Jimp 11:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

you are right, my bad. i thought (wrongly) that it was vandalism. thanks for reverting my reversion. Jytdog (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I thought it must have been a mistake or something. Jimp 11:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, We can agree on that.Johnvr4 (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For proving your ability to stay calm, respectful, and polite, even on drama boards; lack of a grudge against those who would file complaints against you; and, finally, having a near-spotless record that was put under the microscope in a frivolous complaint. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

that is very kind of you. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Requesting Guidance

I am new to the Wikipedia community and would like to reach out to more experienced contributors to collaborate on multiple pages with the possibleneed to editing regarding the relevance of synthetic biology. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.Lgkkitkat (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to help but your question is too vague. Would you please clarify what you are asking? thx Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for you response! This was just a basic request - I'm still trying to figure out my way around the Wiki community. New genetic engineering methods, namely synthetic biology, aims to provide standardization of DNA nucleotide sequences to create or modify living cells existing in natural biological systems. Do you think you can tell me your thoughts on how to integrate this and other basic principles the genetic engineering page?Lgkkitkat (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

responded on your Talk page; sorry for the delay. Jytdog (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No war

No war, I just followed your request and referred to secondary Source. Another claims? Dmitry Dzhagarov (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your note! As per MEDRS, a press release (or a news story in the media) accompanying publication of a primary source are not secondary sources for this kind of information; a reliable secondary source, is a review published in the biomedical literature. Please see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Respect_secondary_sources where it says: "Scientific findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as the original, primary research report is released, and before the scientific community has had an opportunity to analyze the new results. Such sources should generally be entirely omitted (in accordance with recentism), because determining the weight to give to such a study requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on them)." Thanks for talking. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

you put the same note on the Talk page - let's keep this over there...Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

• Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
• You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
• You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
• We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
• Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
• Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
• To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • {{subst:WP Physiology–invite}} ~~~~
• To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • {{subst:WP Physiology–welcome}} ~~~~
• You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! Diptanshu^Talk 12:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with this?

[1]? --Hans Haase (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hans, thanks for your note, but this is better done at the Talk page of the article. May I move your question there, and respond there? thx Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, pse. --Hans Haase (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

done Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

What was your serach input [2] to get (Review[ptyp])? --Hans Haase (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

there are a couple of ways to do it. the best way is to use pubmed's filters. after you run a search (what I searched was "Crtc1 alzheimers"), the filters appear on the left side of the results. select 'review' under "article types". (i am guessing that "ptyp" stands for "publication type") It is by using the filters, that i got the search result that I got. the other way, is just include the word "review" as a search term. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Response to recent undoing

What do you mean not the owner in any reasonable sense? There's evidence that Capital Group Companies owns some percentage of it.Seqqis (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for talking. ah the misery of infoboxes. i don't know that it is reasonable to fill in the "owner" blank at all for publicly traded companies like Amgen; and if one does, I don't know that it is reasonable to list a mere 10% stakeholder. as per Template:Infobox_company it ~seems~ that the "owner" blank is mostly relevant for joint ventures or private companies where ownership is known... what is your rationale for listing a single ~10% stakeholder? thanks again for talking. Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I think for company infoboxes, if there's evidence a company(ies) owns a percentage of another company(small or not) that it should be in the "owner(s)" section of the infobox. However recently some wikipedians disagrees with me, one user stated that if a company owns something like 5% doesn't make it good enough to be in the infobox. The user also stated what about individuals that owns a percentage of a company, and the user went on stating that I or some one else would had to list every individual that has some ownership in a company and that could go to adding like 10,000 owners in the infobox. Even though I've been adding companies that have a small percentage in another company for a while now, and many other wikipedians didn't have a problem with me doing that. A complaint I'm seeing is with the infoboxes on articles like Mazda, it shows companies that have small ownership in Mazda and no one is complaining about that.Seqqis (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

seems like we are in a "i think X, you think Y" position, and there is no clear guidance from the template. Since this is something that seems to interest you, may I suggest that you open a discussion on the Talk page of the company infbox template and get more clarity from the relevant community, on what content should go in the "owner" blank? Right now the template instructions say nothing about how this blank should be used for pubicly traded companies, which is an argument for leaving it blank on such companies. I could see arguments being made that it would make sense to name all "beneficial shareholders" (see definition in SEC regs) in the slot, as that is publicly available information and is a threshold that the SEC considers relevant. But it should be all of those with a benefical stake, or none, in my view. Btw, when you made your edit you didn't provide a source, which was a secondary reason that i reverted. everything should be sourced... Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

we had a little edit conflict there. With respect to the other editor's suggestion that we had to list all owners of a publicly traded company, that is a) impossible, because the identity of all shareholders is not public, verifiable information; and b) not a good faith answer, in my view. please note "beneficial shareholders" are publicly available information, through the 13D filings, and are often included on the 10K or 20F. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

i went ahead and started the discussion on the Talk page, here: Template_talk:Infobox_company#Owner_field. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about not responding back earlier, for what you recently said about Amgen, not being sourced, I just forgot to put proof of ownership in the infobox. Seqqis (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Appreciation of your effort

I think you really deserve a medal for your patience, and the amount of work you are willing to put into helping Johnvr4. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

thanks. i have no dog in that hunt and i like working through complex issues with people. i am happy for john's openness to talk with me.Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. As I noted on John's talkpage, it's hard for me to find the time, and given the really excellent and patient work you're doing, I don't want to distract or detract from that effort by engaging in parallel. You have my support, and I am broadly in agreement with your views. Acroterion (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks, i am grateful to john for being willing to go through this process. Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

See this [3] ] for a little more insight into his interactions: I've been trying to keep it in mind. Acroterion (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Question re revert

Hi Jytdog, I yield to your experience in the matter of the reference that you reverted in Dietary supplement but I want to check that you noticed the links the website provides to lead studies. I thought the reference was worthwhile because it provided a compact, comprehensive and comprehensible account of the wide range of studies that are being undertaken. It would help people to understand that studies are ongoing and also provide readers with easy access to a range of them. In this way, it would be a good starting point for someone interested in reading the evidence. You disagree? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! It is a very cool website, and I think it would be a great external link. But we are really anal about sourcing health-related content. There is a LOT of flaky "information" about health on the web, and a lot of people who believe that flaky stuff, and as WP is an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" you can imagine the kinds of things people want to introduce! That is how MEDRS evolved over the years.. the community needed a way to ensure that WP could meet its mission of providing reliable information to the public -- we needed a very clear guideline about the kinds of sources that are acceptable for health-related content. Short story - acceptable sources are reviews in the biomedical literature, and statements by major medical and scientific bodies. If you have not read WP:MEDRS please have a look. Thanks again for talking! Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Response to revert

Sorry, you didn't have to be angry. I didn't know that users needed permission to change a editors comment, even if a commenter made a typo and another user spotted it and was just correcting it. Not saying your comment was a typo. Seqqis (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't angry. Just very clear that you did something very wrong. Now you know! Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community

Jytdog,

Please refrain from edit warring a topic that both by reason and by consensus on the discussion page has found your position untenable. Please refrain from sending me messages that are unhelpful and condescending. If you cannot support your position with reason you cannot fly. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.78.167 (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

You are the one trying to change content that has been stable a long long time. Please refrain from changing it further until there is consensus to change it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, First of all, if you had checked the history for the edit you might have noticed it entered before you had posted any response so keep your directory to inapplicable rules to yourself please. Do not condescend to me any longer about my time here. You're clearly not addressing the issues in the page and if I receive any more inflammatory messages I'll report you. Here is a directory for you to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scraggle Grackle (talk • contribs) 00:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I am still confused as to who you are - are you one of the IP editors who has been discussing things on Talk:Bacillus thuringiensis? I am sorry that you are rolling into Wikipedia on a warpath - this is not a great way to start here. I believe the issue on the section name is settled. It is, as far as I am concerned, as I wrote on the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

NVM, your entry shows up earlier. It didn't show when I was editing. I was not signed in earlier on the page is why. I'm sorry things are getting out of hand if you are sincere but it seems to me that you aren't in many of the complaints your're making...Scraggle Grackle (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean. You accuse me of things illegitimately. I'm on no war path. You're a sophist. That's a bad way to be any time. I don't understand since you seem like you ought to be a reasonable person but I clearly explained the issue and all of the sudden you're fine with the new edit. Let me ask you, why are you understanding suddenly when he offered no different or better explained reasoning than was provided in the talk page? Why do you go out of your way to just talk irrelevant condescension on the personal talk pages instead of sticking to the topic or addressing the points that had been made there? It seems like the "bullshit" you claim to look out for on your page. I don't mean to insult you but you've demonstrating some serious sophistry. If anything is warpathing it's that. I didn't have any personal issue with you until you began this personal irrelevant issues. In another situation I could have imagined we'd been friendly acquaintances but your behavior is intolerable on this topic. You pretend to want to resolve an issue by consensus when the issues have been effectively explained by a number of individuals independently and you evade them and revert and make personal on the user talk pages. Why? I simply cannot take that as serious civil minded intent on solving an issue we're having. Scraggle Grackle (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

answering the questions in your last paragraph:

• bobo's edit to the section header was neutral, simply removing the adjective. Not replacing "proven" with "disproven" and the like,
• I am sorry you found my comments on your Talk page to be condescending. That was not my intent. Many new users on Wikipedia need guidance about our policies and guidelines. Confusion about how Wikipedia works - about the policies and guidelines that govern what we do here - can get in the way of discussing content. I hope you can see that it is hard to resolve a disagreement over content, when there are not a shared set of groundrules for the discussion itself. The policies and guidelines are those groundrules.
• The final "why" is answered in my first bullet point.

Finally, you have not answered my question about whether you are the same person who edited the page as any (or both) of the IP addresses that have been editing the page. Again, you are new here, but if you are the same as one or both of them, please be aware of WP:SOCK. If you are the same person editing one or more IP addresses and the user name, you should make that clear on your user page and on the Talk page. Sock puppetry is taken very seriously here, and is something that new users sometimes accidentally engage in - if you fallen into violating that by accident I am trying to give you the opportunity to fix it, by disclosing it. Jytdog (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The issues with your RfC

Scraggle Grackle, if you look at this dif with me, let me point out the issues. You made that edit at 21:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC).

• The topmost change you made was adding the RfC tag and description at the top of the already-existing section which was existed since July 2013. People read Talk pages by scrolling down. Everyone expects that the topmost entry will be the oldest and they are more recent as you go down. Topic-wise, when people read an RfC, they expect that everything that follows is a response to the RfC. The person who posted in July 2013 was not responding to the RfC, nor was I, nor were either of the IP addresses in that conversation. Adding the RfC at the top of a section like this, is misleading and disruptive Talk page editing. I don't think you understand how Talk pages work - I don't think you did this on purpose, but it is still a problem. (The instructions for setting up an Rfc are clear that the first step should be creating a new section. See Step 1 there. I grant you that it says " If the talk page already has a section started on the topic, you can edit that existing section, but a new section is generally better." Note that it says a new section is "generally better" - the reasons why it is generally better are what I describe above. And note that is does not say that it is OK to put the RfC at the top of an already-existing section - nobody experienced would ever do this. Wikipedia's guidelines and policies cannot explain every little thing down to the smallest detail. It takes time to learn how we actually do things. Which is why it is unwise to get into a hot dispute when you are still learning how things work)

(note - I just edited the guidelines for setting up an RfC to remove the confusing wording suggesting that it might be OK to put the tag at the top of an already existing section. nobody experienced ever does this. The link above to the instructions, is now pointed to the version that existed before I made this edit. Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC))

• The next change you made (in order from topmost change toward the bottom-most) was editing a comment made by 75.173.78.167 at 20:30, 18 May 2014. This edit is a very serious problem. If you are not the same as 75.173.78.167, this is a serious problem because one NEVER edits the comments of other users. EVER. If you are the same as 75.173.78.167, this is a very serious problem because you are acting as an undisclosed SOCK - one user editing under (at least) two identities, and not disclosing that fact. Either way, the edit was a very bad thing. I don't think you understand how user accounts work - I don't think you did this on purpose - but it is still a problem, either way.
• You then added additional material, which you signed at 21:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC) This is the first time that "Scraggle Grackle" appears in the discussion. Again, as per SOCK, what it looks like, is that three different people are arguing on one side (2 IP addresses and "Scraggle Grackle"), and I on the other. I strongly suspect that this is not true - my sense is that all three are the same person. This is why I keep asking you to clarify.
• I had already responded to the edit made by 75.173.78.167 at 20:30, 18 May 2014 - my edit was time-stamped 21:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC), a full twenty minutes before you added all the stuff above. This pulls my comment out of its context.

Again, I don't think you knew what you were doing when you made these mistakes, but those are the key problems with the mechanics of the edit you made. I am not discussing its content - just the mechanics of it. And I again, I strongly urge you to resolve the SOCK issue. If you do not understand why SOCK is a hugely important issue here, or if you do not know how to resolve it, please just ask me. Jytdog (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment from talk page watcher: Hi, I hope you don't mind my intruding here, but I took a look at this, and it is so obviously WP:DUCK that the two IPs are the same as the registered account that I doubt that anyone is being fooled. I don't think you need to push so hard on the sock issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish, I don't think the new user even understands that he/she is being a SOCK or why it matters, and I don't think they are doing it on purpose.. that is why I am pushing on it. Not to "bust" him/her but to try to get him/her to see. I find that new users often aren't aware that they look like three different people (they just inhabit all their comments, right? "I wrote that, and that and that") and it takes some work to get them to see that they are SOCKing (as we define that) and why it matters. I want Scraggle to get it, and get on board.... i hope that makes sense. but thanks, really! Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, once again you make a big deal out of nothing to lend credence to yourself when your only being sophistic. I understand what a socking is and the IP is the same and it's apparent I didn't have any intention of misleading anybody when you read those entries. You are being ridiculous. Go read the sock page and read the section about logged out entries. It's common and there are no attempts at trying to beguile. Frankly, considering your activities here and your fallacious and misleading attempts to change the subject and discredit in turn don't deserve any serious interpretation anyway. Why don't you simply make note of all the complaints for the same issue on Bt page and notice how even here in our private conversation people have to point out to you that you are obviously being insincere about your levied complaints. On the Bt page you concede now with the excuse that the entry was neutral but there was never any insistence that it be anything like "proven" and wasn't edited in any such way and you know it. I would have had an issue with similar misrepresentation on the other side but nobody even proposed anything like that so don't go off strawmanning again. You're completely fallacious in nearly everything you write. You're a terrible sophist and it's exposed every more and more every time you write. As for the request I already pointed you to the request page and noted that it isn't necessary to start a new topic. It was all relevant to that topic particularly anyway and your being inflationary about an offense on protocol when I already pointed out there is none. I'm finished speaking to youScraggle Grackle (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, Jytdog, I guess that's that. Some users do not benefit from explanations. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC) In case it's unclear, the emoticon I put there is a wink. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess so, because here is what the page says about logged out entries: "Editing while logged out There is no policy against editing while logged out. This happens for many reasons, including not noticing that the login session had expired, changing computers, going to a Wikipedia page directly from a link, and forgetting passwords. Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternate accounts listed earlier in this policy. To protect their privacy, editors who are editing while logged out are never required to disclose their usernames on wiki."

Read the word "actively" and notice that nobody has any obligation to disclose anyway. These complaints are pedantic but treated like they're gravity is something that it isn't.Scraggle Grackle (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

"If the talk page already has a section started on the topic, you can edit that existing section, but a new section is generally better." So you removed the section that explicitly justified my action and therefore it's not ok now. "And note that is does not say that it is OK to put the RfC at the top of an already-existing section - nobody experienced would ever do this. Wikipedia's guidelines and policies cannot explain every little thing down to the smallest detail. It takes time to learn how we actually do things. Which is why it is unwise to get into a hot dispute when you are still learning how things work)" The guide says explicitly: "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template. Sign the statement with Scraggle Grackle (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC) (name and date) or 21:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC) (just the date). Failing to provide a date will cause a robot to remove the pages that notify interested editors of RFCs."

So I followed the explicit rules as they were posted at the time. Don't change them and then give me your question begging rubbish about experienced users. You're obviously not experienced enough in reasoning to even be an operative here. Mind you that this lack of capacity is the exception to ad hominem. At this point you're irredeemable.Scraggle Grackle (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

ah well. good luck! Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you review these fallacies of which you are laden with: Appeal to authority (so experienced), changing goal posts (editing the rules and altering your position when cornered such as with the increased support on the Bt page), ad hominem (many irrelevant attempts to discredit with and see red herring), straw man (characterizing others positions such as suggesting anybody attempted to substitute "proven" for "disproven" on the Bt page), argument from silence (Your initial position for retaining "disproven"), equivocation, fallacy of reference out of context, irrelevant conclusions, and red herrings. There are more but I've made my point. Scraggle Grackle (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) well, you tried. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Pharmacogenomics wiki page

Hi Jytdog, I am, in fact, a student. Groups within the class were to find a 'incomplete' or nonexisting wiki page. I am (of course) very new to Wikipedia and I dont even know if this is the right way to converse with you. (not very convenient) I completely understand the points you made concerning prior authors etc. I just use that my groups contribution not be removed til next week. So that we can receive our grade for the assignment. Thank you, Dolleyj (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)DolleyjDolleyj (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I responded on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Question

Thank you for your message. I recently posted a few edits to a couple Wiki pages, and noticed that they have since been deleted. I then noticed your message to me with helpful hints, and was wondering if it might have been you that deleted my edits? If so, I was wondering if you had any more detailed advice as to why my edits were out of place on their respective pages? Thank you! --Hooeychap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooeychap (talk • contribs) 03:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

i responded on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI

I tripped up on this, I'd hate for you to do the same. The person talking about Serlini is not the same person you and I have had conflicts with in the past. Not sure if your eyes glazed over his name or not, but I just wanted to flag it for you before any assumptions inadvertently occurred. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks, i knew the person was different. but thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You're smarter than I, but I already knew that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

come onnn. but really that was thoughtful to reach out to me. thanks.Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Synthetic Biology

Thanks again for getting back to me. I was off the grid fro a couple weeks. I'd like to reconnect with you when I have more research done that could be useful. Is that ok?Lgkkitkat (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

sure! :) Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Just a note to let you know that I agree with you in that the new paper on the 2 artificial base pairs has to be given cautious due weight. It looks very promising though, because it was peer-reviewed and published in Nature. As you are aware in the merger discussion page (Talk:Synthetic DNA), we have been thinking of the appropriate nomenclature and also considering common names, the best "destination" page, the subtitle and finally, several possible redirect names. I know you stated to MelanieN that you are out, and you and she have not contributed any further in that discussion. I hope you don't mind if Dr. Bogdan and myself complete the merge process to our selected target. I look forward to working with you in the near future on molecular bio topics. I have not been active in those subjects because that's what I do all day (nephrology research), and I relax writing on topics related mostly to astrobiology and abiogenesis. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Do whatever you like! Please keep WP:MEDRS in mind as you go - the importance of secondary sources (reviews in the literature) is emphasized in WP articles with biological or medical topics. As you know the basic literature in the biomedical sciences is not reliable; even Nature has had plenty of retractions. Thanks for reaching out! Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV issue

This may be of interest to you: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Traditional_Chinese_medicine -- regards, Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 07:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. bit canvass-y, though. I read the discussion and am torn. I don't think TCM is any kind of science and so part of me struggles with even labelling it as "pseudoscience." But as per Wikipedia's working definition of pseudoscience (not as defined in the Psuedoscience article, but rather in a guideline, [Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Pseudoscience_and_other_fringe_theories|here]], I think the body of TCM is indeed pseudoscience... again as we use that term as defined in guidelines. Once one agrees with that, the sourcing issue becomes irrelevant to me. The Nature editorial is not the greatest but there are plenty of other sources that could be brought. And as per WP:FRINGE we do not shrink from naming a fringe theory for what it is.... Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog -- Canvassing, seriously? I had no idea where you'd come down on this, only that your opinion would be reasoned and helpful. My own take on this DRN is to follow RS (as seen through lens of WP:FRINGE/PS), not try to demarcate topics ourselves (too SYN-ish and over our heads), and to follow WP:ASSERT and attribute statements wherever there's any doubt (some editors want to use the Nature editorial's wording without attribution). Hope to see you at acupuncture] again sometime! Your comments some weeks ago were a breath of fresh air. regards, Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 05:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

just said "canvass-y" :) i have bailed on the acupuncture thing... I have come to agree with you that QG is too hard to work with. wikipedia is big and i would just as soon avoid working on articles with editors like that. i wish you good luck! Jytdog (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks man. If good editors are pushed away by difficult ones, then "the terrorists have already won". :-) But I completely get your decision. Happy editing! -Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 19:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for excellent work in a contentious subject area. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Epipelagic submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Jytdog as Editor of the Week for untiring work bringing balance and sound sourcing to controversial and difficult articles related to food production and genetic modification. When necessary in order to achieve these goals, Jytdog negotiates his way around conflicts on these pages in exemplary and down to earth ways.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 10:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog

Editor of the Week for the week beginning May 11, 2014

Brings balance and quality sourcing to controversial articles

Recognized for

Evident Good Will

Notable work(s)

One of Wikipedia's top medical contributors

Nomination page

Thank you! And thanks to User:Epipelagic for the nomination as well. I will be have to be sure to pass this on; there are editors more deserving than me. Jytdog (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• While editors may differ with you, your good will is always evident. Nominate a fellow editor Here```Buster Seven Talk 13:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:TENDENTIOUS

I make one edit asking for a ref and you accuse me of tendentious editing? One citation needed? Jeez.

"Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions."

Do you really think my edit really falls into that description? I do agree that it was nitpicky, and for that I apologize. Ordinarily minor nitpicking is sort of the order of the day at Wikipedia but I acknowledge that it can be overdone. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

ummm this itself is kind of nitpicky. my point, was that the comment and questions were pretty POV-pushy. you are absolutely correct that for "tendentious" to stick there has to be a sustained pattern and one comment does not a pattern make. my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No problems. I apologize for being nitpicky and will try to be less so. Thanks! Capitalismojo (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

lead, description of creation of man/woman

A user who has insisted upon crediting me with the edits you made to the page Genesis creation narrative is asking for mediation over his or her reversion of your edits. I have attempted to engage them and correct them on a few facts they are either misrepresenting or ignorant of, but they seem unwilling to listen. Would you, perhaps, be interested in participating in such a mediation? If so, I will back you up on every point except referring to the second part as a narrative (an edit I began to make, but which generated an edit conflict with the other editor's second reversion). It seems the only way to make the edits you and I have agreed upon without beginning an edit war. If not, I have no intention of continuing to engage with this editor, who cannot concede even the demonstrably true.

_{bump :). Just wanted to make sure this didn't get lost behind my stalky answer in the section above.}

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks for making this bump. you are sagacious indeed. i will come join the conversation and see what i can do! will be later tonight though, i have my hands full at work right now. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for lending a helping hand!

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		Many thanks for supporting my students working on the Human cloning article during the Spring 2014 semester. Biolprof (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

thank you! it is my pleasure to help. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Isotretinoin

I opened a discussion at the Admin notice board, but it looks like the page is already protected. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

3RR would have been the place, I think. A block usually brings someone to Talk, for real. I think the ANI won't get anywhere. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

here is the request for page protection that drew in kelapstick. Jytdog (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Pineal gland calcification

I started Talk:Water_fluoridation_controversy#Pineal_gland_calcification. --David Hedlund (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I look forward to talking. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The perils of boldness...

"melancholia (temperament)" is a superfluous disambiguator, and now we have another wp:malplaced redirect to "melancholia (disambiguation)"... ^walk victor falk ^talk 16:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

nothing is undoable! we can finish talking for sure. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

am not sure I agree that it is malplaced as per that link. There is no longer any page called "Melancholia". but let's do keep talking.Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Fluoride

Re the revert on fluoride. I still think that it is at least very bad taste to quote verbatim without quotation marks. From any source. As someone who publishes regularly, I would get into big trouble for that kind of move, but you seem to think that Wikipedia is not subject to that expectation. Pretty surprising. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss further. US government content is public domain, and I believe that the citation provided at the bottom of the section that was deleted makes it clear that the table is taken from a US govt source: "Data taken from United States Department of Agriculture, National Nutrient Database" - we can recap and continue this discussion on the Talk page of the article if you like. Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

mycelium

i asked a question in the talk page of mycelium, you reverted the change may i know why? having it clarified on the talk page seems to be a better solution to me than someone else adding it to the article if it doesn"t belong there, then reverted, then poibly reverted a few times, or added and reverted despite it belonging there and then regularly reverted. a clear answer in the talk page would stop that and give a standard for dealing with it if it happens — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFIST (talk • contribs) 11:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

the question you asked in this dif, on the Talk page of Mycelium, (an article about fungus) was "is the android wallet popular enough for a mention at the top of the page to say that this page is not about it? " The Talk page guidelines are very clear, that article Talk pages, are for discussing the article content. The first pillar of Wikipedia, is WP:NOT, which says that what we are about here, is creating an encyclopedia, and it specifies that Wikipedia is WP:NOTPROMOTION not for promoting products or pet ideas. Editors who abuse their editing privileges by demonstrating that they are not here to build an encylopedia but instead are disruptive can get blocked or banned. I came about an inch from putting a vandalism notice on your Talk page in addition to deleting what you wrote. Would you please explain how your contribution was a good faith effort to improve the article? Jytdog (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to stalk a bit, but I noticed this and I can explain for TheFIST. There is a Bitcoin Wallet for the Android OS called Mycelium, which you can see at the google play store. However, the answer to the question TheFIST posed at the talk page is a resounding no, per WP:NOTABLE. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

OH! Wow that is a great example of a dramatic "different worlds" story - as you have rightly seen I had no idea there was a bitcoin wallet called mycelium and took it as just a bizarre interjection. Thanks! and clearly thefist thought it was common knowledge that such a product existed and didn't explain it. crazy. thanks. i owe thefist an apology. Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

sorry for not having clarified it better initially, i can understand that something not notable enough for wikipedia is not common enough knowledge for someone editing an otherwise unrelated topic to know about it TheFIST (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Genetically modified food / citations

A note of thanks for adding the improved citations at Genetically modified food. Just a moment ago, I took a moment to complete & wikify them. Here is a useful help article that lists a number of tools that aid in the creation of complete, wiki-compatible citations: Help:Citation tools. In the case of the citations that you added, I used the 5th tool listed (Tools > Reference Generator) to generate a reference. Thanks again, and I hope that you find this information to be useful.  —Waldhorn (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I like to work on content and really don't care about citation templates. I perhaps should but the main thing I care about is that the citation is good and findable. But I appreciate the work that folks like you do! Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Mentioned you in a comment [4] on QuackGuru's user talk; he was blocked for a week and some discussion inevitably ensued. Mentioned you as an e.g. of an editor driven away from editing articles QG edits (per your earlier comment to me here [5]). Happy editing --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 09:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Electronic cigarettes

I think you have the faulty impression that i'm closed to the fact that e-cigarettes can be potentially harmful.. if you have such an impression then let me state clearly: I am not. The major uncertainty with regards to e-cigarettes are the flavoring agents, which are generally unknown. Fortunately most e-liquid analysis' that have been done, have only found toxicants and carcinogens in very low (trace amounts), but this doesn't imply that they are safe. What is mostly supported though, with a growing body of research and data, is that e-cigarettes are significantly less toxic/carcinogenic than cigarettes - but that does not confer safety.

I was reading the FDA paper that you linked to[6], and i think that i (and most of the RS's) agree with most of what is contained within the section that is written in section 5. E-cigarettes.

My problem with your edits and your (almost) TLDR comment[7], has mainly been the conflation of various issues, and areas within the topic, and the assumptions that follow from such a conflation. Examples: Yes - there are uncertainties with what is in e-cigs; But - the uncertainties are not with the main ingredients (PG,VG,PEG). Yes - there are problems with quality control; But - they are with purity primarily. Yes - device design is an uncertainty; But - this is not necessarily linked to toxicity/carcinogenicity. Yes - device type has a function on how the vapor delivers certain chemicals (primarily nicotine); But - these do not translate into too much nicotine, nor is the heat strong enough to markedly change the chemical composition. Yes - trace amounts of toxic and carcinogenic components have been found; But - the amount is important when addressing this. (salt is toxic, but ingesting it in low amounts is not - it is in fact necessary).

I'm certainly not WP:OWNing the article, nor do i engage in WP:ADVOCACY. But i am rather anal retentive towards accuracy, and a fair and accurate representation proportionally to what is found in WP:MEDRS's on the topic. :) And i really hope that we can have a meeting of minds on the article, since my primary goal is to make it better, and i hope that yours is as well.

Well that was probably WP:TLDR - but i hope i wasn't to obtuse :)

Time to find my bed, goodnight. --Kim D. Petersen 00:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Everything you are doing is a perfect embodiment of blind WP:ADVOCACY - not listening, not asking (where is a single question in what you write above?), assuming that an editor who has a different perspective from you is opposed to your viewpoint and ignorant - your comments above reflect that you haven't actually read what I have written. And now, fooling yourself that you are just "being anal" about inaccuracy. Really - read WP:TENDENTIOUS and ask yourself the questions there. (The essence of it, is that instead of actually talking with people - listening and responding and dialoguing - and working to reach consensus on an article, what an editor is interested in, is driving his/her point of view into the article and keeping it there. No dialogue, no responsiveness, ignoring other people. Lots of talking, sure, but talking at, not with. Like what you did above, you are talking at me. It is an incredibly frustrating behavior.) Moving on - I am sure this is a waste of time but I will respond to your inaccurate assumptions about my views. The content I added today was about the uncertainty of liquid ingredients and variability of devices and thus variability in vapor - which is all about uncertainty not about harm per se. (This is the #1 concern of the FDA and European regulators - why they cannot walk away from the issue) I added content that said that some reviewers find e-cigs likely to be safer than smoking, due to the thousands of chemicals in cigarette smoke, many of which are unknown and do unknown things, and many of which are known to cause harm. I also added content about reduced risks from second hand smoke. I also added content about the risk of nicotine poisoning from liquid. The first is about uncertainty, the second and third are relatively positive, the fourth is indeed negative. That is not anything like what you describe above. So really - I am all kinds of frustrated with your bad behavior on Talk over the simple issue of "usually". No way am I going to try to engage in a complex discussion about paraphrasing multiple sources with an editor who acts like you have acted. Please don't come back here unless you have a question for me and want to actually have a dialogue. Please give your editing a good hard self-scrutiny - the questions posed in WP:TENDENTIOUS are very useful, if you really ask them of yourself. Yes, go vape and put yourself to bed. I will go have a smoke. You have really angered me. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Claims of bias

I made claims of bias. You took so much time to explain the policies. I do not understand how your words are going to counter the claims of bias. Let me explain in case you do not see clearly what I am calling bias. Many publications claim that anything except clinical trials of methods based on chemicals from chemical factories are not medicine. These publications (including wikipedia) make sweeping statements of inefficacy of alternative to chemical medicines. No real trials are done to actually verify the claims of natural generally lower cost medicines available to people. The reason is plain to see and simple. The patent based medical industry does not do trials on simple things like a banana because they do not sell bananas. If they found out that honey or bananas are better then their medicines for ANY ailment. They convince people like you that Wikipedia policies are fair and scientific and "modern" and right. I think you are wrong and many others are wrong when they are biased. All I am doing is stating the obvious. If a group of people think they are not biased and in fact they are let them be. I am not going to bother going through the policies just to know that the result is a biased article. I already informed you that I do not want to spend more time on wikipedia. I shall be updating the info on other websites. Yall can keep you "unbiased" and "open" for editing encyclopedia. I tried to change something and all yes ALL of my edits have been reverted. On all the edits I was treated like as if the editors knew better. Even thought they never provided any reference or source for doing so. You are part of them. You cannot see your own bias and limits of being able to see any other viewpoint. Consider yourself openminded and scientific. I shall consider you want I see. Limited in able to accept another's viewpoint. Not only do you revert the edits, you talk so much about the changer being SOOOO wrong that it causes them to leave and contribute to some other website which is more open. Please do not bother to explain without explaining all of the reverts with REAL science. Not reviews of scientific papers. But actual measurements by independent researchers.

Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khawar.nehal (talk • contribs) 18:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you are responding to this! Thanks for explaining where you are coming from. I really hear what you are saying. What I don't understand, is how do you know if some traditional treatment works or not? That is a real question. Would you please answer? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

In any case, I am sorry that you do not find Wikipedia to your liking. I wish you well. Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok since you asked. Here is an answer. There are many cases where it works. I shall provide examples from science. Science supports traditional medicines but the patent based medical mafia does not want the information out so they keep making statements like "there is no proof of it working" even though they know it works. They cannot patent things like honey, garlic and other simple things so they patent bandages with honey nowdays just to make money.

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2014/354172/abs/

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/24783938

http://thescitech.com/admin/includes/abstractpdf/2014-9-05536cdd2c1d2a2.pdf

http://www.digitalafro.com/possible-cure-for-leukemia-found-by-creating-artificial-bone-marrow/

http://www.ijcmas.com/vol-3-1/Trina%20Chakraborti,%20et%20al.pdf

http://www.dermasciences.com/products/advanced-wound-care/medihoney/inside-the-u-s/

http://www.jcn.co.uk/files/downloads/articles/01-2014-chitosan-a-natural-solution-for-wound-healing.pdf

http://www.nature.com/jp/journal/v34/n2/abs/jp2013158a.html

http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2007/ob/b703832a#!divAbstract

Notice that the papers with experiments shall find results of traditional medicine working but you shall get a lot of papers which are "reviews" and do not do any measurements. And the reviews are more like 99.9%+ chance of concluding that there inconclusive proof of the medicine working. And to act neutral they shall say that more research is required. Basically the reviews are biased and are not considered real science now days by scientists like us.

I hope your eyes have been opened to a little reality now. If your TV has brainwashed you throughly, then go ahead and deny the research without conducting a single real experiment on your own. Also as a reminder that is why I am not bothering to edit wikipedia. I shall be informing my students that as long as wikipedia is biased, they should look for both sides of the story.

Regards, Khawar Nehal Khawar.nehal (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for talking! OK, my question was, "how do you know it works" and if I am getting you right, your answer is "science". So you accept the validity of the scientific method as a way to understand the physical world... Am I correct about that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Synthetic Biology & Genetic Engineering

Just wanted to find out what could be added about synthetic biology and it's relevance to genetic engineering. I'd really like to know your thoughts. I am just overwhelmed and need some direction. So far my contributions to other pages have passed community standards and I got my first barnstar. I plan to be more active...but still have issues with feeling comfortable here. Thanks for getting back to me last month. Hope to hear from you soon. Thanks :) Lgkkitkat (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

There is SO much information I just don't know where to start. It's an amazing development in genetic and bio-medical engineering that is still in it's infancy. Scientists are trying to provide standardized DNA nucleotide sequences to create or modify existing natural biological systems. Biobricks and M.I.T.'s Registry of Standardized Biological Parts are examples of DNA banks that provide genetic codes to build DNA from scratch. These synthetic genomes can begin design to DNA in a cost efficient and timely manner. But with all the good there is always the bad...blueprinting new medicines - good, bio-terrorism - bad. The new sequences have bistablity - meaning some work and some are defective...the uncooperative DNA sequence is bound to show up since these man-made systems are reprogramming cell function - they may not behave or work as intended. Can you please help me figure out a way to write about it...wikipedially? Any response would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.Lgkkitkat (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of offending

Hey Jytdog, I thought I should leave you a messsage here re Rwendler's contributions to explain myself. Recognizing that extending a hand to someone in PR is a double edged sword, I still believe it's worth the chance. As you pointed out on CorporateM's page, there are good, ethical people in the field. I thought characterizing the edits/actions/intent as "reprehensible", given they've contributed less than 20 edits was a little heavy-handed or maybe just premature. I got the feeling that this was someone new, without knowledge of rules rather than someone actively trying to circumvent them. I've added a couple of welcoming messages to Rwendler's page. This is not intended to undermine your efforts, only to help someone that might want to volunteer. Regards. Ian Furst (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Your note is very welcome. I agree, I was too sharp. I do get very burned out on people using Wikipedia for promotion. I am usually much much nicer. ack. Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)