User talk:KoA/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

hello!

Hi - pleased to meet you! Nice to meet another science-oriented person on WP. I recently did a quick blast over the Armyworm related articles. They were a big, smeared mess and I separated them out into stub articles and created a main disambiguation page for armyworm (that is what is linked above) but the various articles could definitely do with some bug-expert knowledge. Ditto agriculturally important Ostrinia sp and Pink bollworm.... again, pleased to meet you! Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Pleased as well Jytdog. I haven't been in the articles you've mentioned much yet, but I saw some other sloppy entomological articles and decided to actually get into a bit of editing on Wikipedia finally (although that's rolling out rather slowly since research takes priority over hobbies). I'll definitely be taking a look over them when I get a bit more time. I have lurked in the ag articles that tend to get more passionate edits (e.g., the biotech related ones) as well, so I may pop into those on occasion with edits, but I imagine that could turn into more of a time sink than I could handle pretty quickly given the amount of edits you've put into them. I'd definitely like to clean up some of the entomology sections over time though, so we'll see where that leads.Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

that would be amazing! thanks for being willing. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hand foot and mouth disease

Can you provide a reference discussing the new HFMD vaccine? I would be very interested to see it. If it comes from a reliable source, I will be sure to discuss it in the article. Thanks King! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi TylerDurden8823. I originally made the edit after browsing through Timeline of vaccines and seeing the vaccine listed there. I used the same source from the BBC as on that page, which also links to the original study at http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2813%2961049-1/abstract. It's a primary literature source, so it's probably best to stick to saying a vaccine exists at this point, but that in the quick browsing I could find nothing is that commercially available, efficacy on HFMD as a whole (since it's only for one virus), etc. I don't have much expertise in vaccines, so I mainly just wanted to make sure the point was made that a vaccine does exist in some fashion after seeing the discrepancy between the two pages. Beyond that, it seems the currently developed vaccine is still being studied, so it doesn't seem like there's much more to say at the moment, at least from my cursory browsing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the clarification. I'll see if I find any citable secondary sources mentioning the vaccine. If not, I'll keep a watchful eye for future reviews mentioning this. Perhaps we'll see a vaccine released to the public in the near future. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Questions about deletions

Hi, I would love to know why you removed "Bayer strongly denies the allegations" citing http://www.britishbeekeeping.com/ and the possible cause of Bt GMO crops on honeybees colony collapse disorder from [1] and [2]? EllenCT (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

On the specific note of Bayer's response, it was out of place after making the other deletions in that section since it was a standalone statement. The other problem is that it's ambiguous what the allegations were, and what was particularly being responded to. Either way, unless there was scientific evidence being presented against something, a group simply denying something without evidence shouldn't have any weight in a section that's describing scientific research. Now if we had proper sources saying a specific claim was made, but another grouped responded saying the methodology was wrong, etc. and the latter view was shown to be readily accepted, then the former statement would simply be struck. There just doesn't appear to be a place for "group X denies claim Y" type statements in this context as that's not how science is written about. Either there's evidence refuting an idea and we strike the claim, or the claim remains if there isn't evidence. If all we have is a denial and no evidence, it's not relevant here.

On GMOs, I removed the content from the initial paragraph because that topic was not describing a possible cause per se, but a topic that have been looked at and mostly disregarded or has very little evidence. Basically, it was weighting the intro paragraph to list the main factors that are getting the most attention or have good evidence behind them, while leaving out other things where we say in the actual section that the current evidence shows that factor isn't a concern. It's like how we don't give undue weight to miasma theory as an actual potential cause of disease in an article about germ theory of disease. The way the current section is written, Bt isn't affecting honeybee health (it's a largely insect order specific protein so you don't get broad nontarget effects like you do with pesticides), so we shouldn't be listing it as a possible cause, but rather something that was looked at and largely refuted. It's mainly a nuance trying to say that it was once something that was looked into as a possible cause, but that research points to it not being an issue. That's why I deleted it from the intro sentence, but left the actual section to describe what research was looked into on the topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I was under the impression that honeybees are insects. What are the sources you determined rule out Bt GMOs as a possible cause of CCD? To what extent do you believe evidence of corporate astroturfing, when it exists, should be included in pertinent articles? EllenCT (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This discussion belongs on the relevant article's Talk page. EllentCT. With respect to Bt, see Bacillus_thuringiensis#Colony_collapse_disorder. (yes bees are insects but as Kingofaces just told you, Bt does not kill every kind of insect; it only kills some kinds -- some "orders" -- of insects; this is what he meant when he wrote "it's a largely insect order specific protein so you don't get broad nontarget effects"). EllenCT, I would suggest that if you want the article(s) to explicitly discuss alleged corporate astroturfing, please bring that up on the article's talk page, or boldly make edits to the article, and let the community react. Jytdog (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) EllenCT, I was surprised to find out that you are the subject of ArbCom proceedings, and your interactions with Kingofaces was recently cited there by a third party as part of the evidence of a pattern of disruptive editing. Coming to the Talk page of an editor whom you have directly queried about COI, as you did here and whom you seem to have directly accused of COI and paid advocacy in this edit note, and then asking about their personal view on discussions of astroturfing, looks somewhat like harassment and will not help you at Arbcom. For what it is worth, you should take the discussion at Arbcom as a wake-up call to change, and to work very carefully to focus on content, not contributors. Jytdog (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I appreciate your concern and efforts, but Kingofaces43 offered this Bayer-sponsored consultant-authored paper when I first asked him for a peer reviewed literature review here. Do you believe that is a literature review? Bacillus thuringiensis#Colony collapse disorder says "German researchers have noted in one study a possible correlation between exposure to Bt pollen and compromised immunity to Nosema" but none of the references in that section are peer reviewed secondary sources. Do you think there is any evidence that Bayer has not engaged in a decades-long astroturf campaign on this issue? I stand by my edits, and appreciate yours. EllenCT (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ellen, I echo Jytdog's sentiments exactly. If you were going to take this conversation on content any further I would have suggested bringing it to the article talk page (although it should have been there from the get go). If you have content and related reliable sources to discuss, it should be discussed at the article. As I've mentioned before, try putting down the paid editing/astroturfing pitchfork and rely on editing by content and reliable sources like the rest of us. If someone has a pitchfork in hand often, there's a tendency to want to use it when the situation doesn't call for one. This can result in WP:Advocacy that I'm assuming is unintentional on your part when you bring paid advocacy claims into articles without appropriate evidence for it. Focus on content in the future and potential issues with that content should be apparent within the guidelines we have for editing here on Wikipedia. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I asked you for a literature review, and you gave me a Bayer-sponsored primary source and argued quite strongly for it until I brought actual peer reviewed literature reviews' conclusions on the topic to your and other editors attention on the appropriate talk page. Then you deleted those WP:SECONDARY sources and the well-documented astroturf efforts of Bayer. Therefore which one of us brought paid advocacy into the discussion? EllenCT (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ellen, I can't say I've brought paid advocacy into the conversation at all. The literature review I provided that you are referring to is a secondary source (that's what peer-reviewed literature reviews are by nature), and didn't have anything particularly different than the other literature reviews we were citing. It's simply one of the most recent. My deletions of your content were either of primary literature or claims being made that were not supported by the sources or extremely ambiguous lines about Bayer denying some unspecified allegations. Again, we've already discussed this on the talk page. If you have additional content to discuss on the article, bring it to the article talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT, just in this small discussion, you have failed to understand something that Kingofaces said very clearly (explanation about selectivity of Bt) and mischaracterized a reference as a primary source which is clearly a secondary source - a reference that you have apparently been talking about for quite some time. All in the context of throwing around accusations of COI, astroturfing, and paid advocacy. I don't know if you are moving too fast to really read and think and be accurate, or if you really don't know what you are talking about and are plowing ahead anyway. Either way, the result is garbage in, garbage out, and the fierceness with which you are advocating changes to content, based on such a weak foundation, is really intolerable. Your user page says that you are an analyst, writing reports on various industries and are "part of a team responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars in outstanding commodity and foreign exchange futures and forward contracts used to hedge import-export and industrial trade for dozens of large corporate clients." I can't believe that you would tolerate this kind of sloppiness with regard to fundamentals from others at your job or that your colleagues would tolerate it in your work -- I imagine you would get thrown off the team in a heartbeat if you advocated strategies based on such flawed understanding. Why do you think it is OK to be sloppy and undisciplined here? Real question.Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: are you suggesting that a literature review of "current and proposed guidance in the United States and Europe for assessing the risks of pesticides to honeybees" is the same thing as an unbiased review of "risks of neonicotinoid insecticides to honeybees"? About how many peer reviewed papers do you believe are in each of those two sets? Why do you believe that implying there is any overlap at all in the contexts of industry-sponsored and consultant-produced work and decades of astroturfing is not sloppy and undisciplined? [3] is an example of actual literature review, as opposed to a position paper which includes a review of adjunct but non-overlapping literature. I stand by my edits, and am saddened that someone of your stature feels the need to resort to attempts at personal attacks. EllenCT (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

all I can say, is wow. And, I am not continuing this here. I will respond with respect to your behavior on your Talk page, and will give my thoughts on the source on the article Talk page. I would suggest we copy the above (starting with my comment "EllenCT, just in this small discussion...") to your user Talk page, but I will not move your comment above without your permission. Jytdog (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I am not interested in fragmenting the discussion further, so I will reply here. Were you able to find a discussion of the review methodology in the paper in question? EllenCT (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ellen, this is a user talk page. Take the conversation on content to the article talk page where the conversation has direct implications like we suggested earlier. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

some helpful advice that i received

User_talk:Jytdog#Helpful_shortcuts_.26_templates Jytdog (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! It's always tempting to purse such folks, but the thing I like about Wikipedia is that it's relatively easy to defer to content and Wikipedia's guidelines to diffuse such situations. Ironically though, WP:ASPERSIONS brings the next section to the very top of my screen "Allegations that an editor may be violating the policy on the protection of children". I'll admit I was a little confused until I scrolled up to see the actual section being referred to. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Ellen

Take a look at her talk page. I think I've said enough there. Perhaps if you'd like to comment further.... But your edit to the Whitewash thread doesn't address article improvement issues. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, S. Rich. I'll admit I was a little iffy on posting as much as I did about on an article talk page since it's an odd mix of behavior and content issues, but I mainly wanted focus on the actual content and reiterate how content was actually being handled by other editors previously and hopefully shift discussion back to content. Anything beyond that is getting too far into editor behavior and isn't something I really want to deal with in this case. I don't really intend to comment further in the whitewashing section as it currently sits since I don't see that section going anywhere in terms of additional content discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup. I saw that. But I want to give encouragement to you. Admittedly it is difficult to respond constructively when there is a mixture of article-related and editor-related comments on the article talkpage. – S. Rich (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources

Hello: I'm not clear on why you describe the references here as primary sources. Aren't these vetted WP:SCHOLARSHIP-type articles as opposed to primary research papers? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) the standard way that scientists think about primary/secondary/tertiary sources is described here and here. The section you cite,WP:SCHOLARSHIP was poorly written; I just edited it to clarify the distinction between secondary and primary sources. thanks for calling that confusion out. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look. – S. Rich (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog got it pretty much. It can be a little confusing because a primary research paper (one describing an actual experiment for the first time) is vetted by the journal and peer-reviewers, so in some forms it is a secondary source for what the general public might be used to. However, in the scientific world we call that primary research. Later on, other scientists will come along and summarize a general topic and cite notable papers (mostly primary research) to summarize the research to date on the topic. That is called a review paper and is what is considered at secondary source by Wikipedia. I’ll admit I get confused by Wikipedia’s guidelines sometimes because I’m used to the scientific notation when reading the general source reliability guidelines, but a secondary or primary source can be something slightly different once you get outside of peer-reviewed scientific sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll recommend that you use the term in the WP:PRIMARY sense – that would save me from confusion too. @Jytdog: perhaps you can clarify "primary research paper" on that page. – S. Rich (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

S. Rich, I'm a little confused since I'm not sure what you mean with respect to WP:PRIMARY. It states, "a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment . . .". That's the notation we're using here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I confused the situation. (Sorry.) The diff (above) referred to the Guardian & Nature articles. But aren't those articles referring to the other, original studies? If that is the case, then they are acceptable secondary sources. (Thanks for helping me understand more about this topic.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at the diffs here: [4]. Can you guys help a bit with clarifying the guidance? (Or am I still confused?) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the rationale for the reversion provided in the edit note was correct, but generally you don't want to make changes to any policy without discussing. I was very bold in making changes to the guideline that I did, but I wouldn't change a policy without proposing it first on Talk. You are likely to get a pretty thoughtless revert, as you did. (I do agree with the reversion - I don't think that your addition added clarity...) Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

In terms of scientific research, those are not reliable secondary sources. Reporters typically do not have the background to assess the validity of scientific findings. That's why we rely on other scientists in the field to do so in their reviews, and that's why review articles are considered reliable secondary sources [5]. WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS outline how journal articles should be used and what issues come from folks at Wikipedia using them when especially the primary source articles are intended for a scientific audience who can assess the validity of the paper, not the general public. As for your edit you mentioned, Jytdog summed it up well. The reason for reverting was technically incorrect, but the text before your addition already described what a primary source is when it comes to journal articles and the like (i.e. don't define a term by using that same term in the definition). When questions of what is a primary vs. secondary source come up, it's better to point them out to the scientific guidelines like I did for you. Science is tough, and even more so when trying to source it on Wikipedia without being familiar with some of this background, so good work on trying to tackle it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

(S Rich notified me of this thread, so I just add my thoughts after my earlier revert). Perhaps my edit note was a bit short - but in my view the "a scientific research paper (that is a primary research paper)" implies that all scientific research papers are primary research papers. And while you may argue that literature reviews and metaanalysis are no research papers (already something not necessarily agreed upon in all fields of science); historical and legal research is almost exclusively secondary analysis of sources, so many of their research papers will not be primary. (to make life miserable -I would definitely classify position papers as primary sources - although for many they will look and feel like literature reviews).

To be honest I think the current text makes it clear enough that bringing new data (from your own experiment) to the table is a primary report on that data. So I do not think we need to change this line at this moment. Cheers Arnoutf (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the confusion here is in what is being called a research paper. We've been specifying primary research papers and not just research papers in general, so that does distinguish from reviews for those who know the difference already. I would have reverted the text as well though, but it would have been because one shouldn't include the term being defined as part of the definition. Either way, I think that content is fine as is. Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I see the discussion continues on the article page, but I'll try to understand a bit more (as a non-scientist) here. As I understand primary research, scientist X climbs Mt. Everest and measures the speed at which a dropped apple falls. The scientist goes to Death Valley and does the same experiment. The paper which X announces the results is the primary research. But along comes the reporter from Force of Gravity News who reads X's paper. (FOG News, by the way, is the Lancet of these newsletters.) When the reporter writes the story about X's work, we have a secondary source. (Am I in a fog?) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd take the article conversation with a grain of salt. Gandydancer has a tendency to want to include primary sources on that article it seems even though the general consensus among most Wikipedia editors is that primary sources are typically not preferred when it comes to scientific topics. As for your question, you are correct that it is a secondary source, but it is not a reliable source because the reporter doesn't have the background to assess whether the experiment was done correctly, what the results actually mean, etc. When a primary study passes peer-review, that isn't a stamp of approval for the general public to take it at face value. Instead, that means the peer-reviewers thought the results were interesting enough that it warrants giving the study a wider venue to other scientists in the field to read and determine it's validity. You can still have a poorly designed study at this point that reviewers didn't catch, or incorrect assumptions that will be caught when scientists read the study. It's not until a scientist writing a review citing the results of the study that you have a truly reliable secondary source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Got it. For article purposes it looks more like a WP:CONTEXTMATTERS evaluation. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Please raise your concerns with me on the COIN

Since User:Robert McClenon has declined to answer my question about how to make a WP:COIN report without making what he considers to be a personal attack, I ask that you raise your concerns about my complaints regarding your editing and selection of sources on WP:COIN where they can be appropriately addressed by third parties who are interested in studying COI issues. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Kingofaces has already raised his concerns about your harassment in the appropriate place for him to do so, namely ANI. If you need advice on how to bring a case at COIN (which is the appropriate venue in which to raise your concerns - the way you have been doing is personal attack and harassment), I recommend that you start by reading the instructions at WP:COIN, then read cases in the COIN archive to see actual examples, and if you are still uncertain, ask someone for help.Jytdog (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

let me add that after you have done your homework, i would help you prepare a COIN posting; it is straightforward to do. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

in light of Kingoface's explicit disclosure below and his recent addition to his userpage, I am withdrawing my offer to assist. There is no good-faith basis for an accusation of COI anymore. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog beat me to the punch by saying almost exactly the same I was going to. EllenCT, you've been pointed to WP:COIN many times (and directly pointed out by me and others) some of the key notes there that:

• "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period." Not done at all, particularly because you stated you refuse to do so, and now you again wish to skip that important step.
• "Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline." Which is partly why you’re at ANI right now.

The fact that you continue to push COI even after I went above and beyond of WP:COI by giving information about what I actually do for research and not being funded by a company in question (I don't have an obligation to disclose that information on WP even), and after bringing your behavior on COI (among other issues) to ANI, seems to indicate you aren’t legitimately interested in whether I have a COI. Instead, you seem intent to demonstrate I have one regardless through a fishing expedition for COI rather than actually having evidence of it. I’m well aware you don’t like some of the reliable source standards the community uses here (or interpret them very differently) for scientific content that I tend to edit by, so just a reminder of another note on COIN, “COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content.” The COI comments should have stopped long ago when I directly responded to them, and additional discussion should have occurred here if there were additional questions as you already have been told. You are still being uncivil by pursuing the topic in this manner, and the ANI discussion should have been an indication for you to pause and realize this to avoid just plowing ahead with the topic in such a manner. This is just adding more evidence to the pile against you, and the suggestion not to do that from the very person who opened the ANI about you should indicate you are not going down a good road.

I’ve given you many opportunities to discuss this topic properly, but my patience wore out the moment you ignored your last warning and I felt forced to go to ANI. You have sanctions sitting over your head at ANI at the moment, so it would be best to resolve that conversation before trying to push the one of many issues even further that got you there in the first place. Pursuing this now is a distraction from the ANI discussion that is not going to help your case, and actual discussion of the topic is now something for after the ANI if you are able to follow proper protocol on it at that time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here, but I suggest that our COI-associated disagreements have spanned the many months between our very first interaction on the Bayer-sponsored source, and just recently with the Bird Conservancy review. Since I have been warned, I will not be posting on COIN about you at least until the ANI thread is closed with guidance indicating that it might be proper for me to do so, and then only with Jytdog's guidance as he offered above. EllenCT (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote above, now that Kingofaces has made an even more explicit disclosure below, my offer to help is withdrawn. I will have no part of it any longer - nothing is ambiguous anymore.Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I had this written up as part of a specific response, but I figured I'd make it just a general statement. I take COI very seriously, which is why I point it out on my user page. Working at a university, I have the benefit of being independent from the companies. That means even if I did take funding from them (even though I don't receive private funding from any company so this is largely irrelevant) I don't have a benefit from showing them in a positive or negative light, especially as an anonymous editor. Heck I don't even have a benefit from describing what the science actually says here aside from my own enjoyment in summarizing largely entomological and agricultural literature often outside of my little niche. The only place where I would really start running into COI is if I started trying to push my own research findings on Wikipedia, which I make aptly sure not to do by citing other researchers in the fields instead and staying away from specific topics I actually publish on. I don't work with bees, I don't work with neonicotinoids, and I don't have any financial or personal connections to specific insecticides even if I've happened to use certain ones in research projects (i.e. happening to use shag carpet in one of your rooms wouldn't be COI for shag carpet articles). Now, folks who do take funding from companies are still expected to not bias the science (even expected by their funding source) because the company otherwise risks presenting faulty results that could come back to bite them, and the scientist's reputation is ruined amongst the other companies and public funding sources. That however, is starting to drift off into a topic that is better suited for a forum than this conversation. Either way, I've provided more than enough information to satisfy WP:COI, so this is a point where specific evidence is needed to demonstrate COI on my part if it's going to be pursued any further so that I can address it here. Otherwise we're just going fishing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you mind if I ask your general job title, and an anonymized description of the experiences you may have had in the past with identifying bias in sources? EllenCT (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

At this point I'm letting things be with you here until the ANI is finished. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Those questions are in my view entirely inappropriate. EllenCT I suggest you take my advice and go read a bunch of COIN postings to see how they are actually handled in WP - what is appropriate, and what is not. There are tons in the archives there. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Content disputes

This is related to but quite different from the AN/I case. A tip in content disputes: you don't always have to convince the other person. If you find yourself repeating your arguments, you can simply conclude the discussion. If the rough consensus is on your side, you can make the edit or invite them (or do it yourself) to pursue dispute resolution methods, including WP:3O, WP:RfC and WP:DRN. The Talk pages are for discussion, but content is what matters. You are not forced to respond to every comment made. Kingsindian (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I especially like the not responding to every comment bit (although I think that's a temptation we all fall for). I'm aware of dispute resolution related boards, but I guess I'm stubborn about figuring out content on the talk page if possible. Part of it is to avoid escalating situations with prickly editors if I can. If you're mainly referring to the recent RSN, I was planning to ask science editors from related Wikiprojects to weigh in, but I let that topic go for the time being. Thanks again. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I often fall for that temptation myself. You might be interested in a short essay I wrote on this topic of content dispute (nothing to do with your case, it had to do with the area I usually edit in, WP:ARBPIA). Kingsindian (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: EllenCT

I know you think I'm involved, but I'm still willing to be convinced and move over to the dark side your side if the evidence is good enough. So please indulge me. What are the two best diffs you have showing EllenCT is a problem? Just two, please. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, first I'd just like to say it's refreshing to see this comment given our past interactions that were a bit spiny. I'm not particularly looking for "sides" on this, and since the ANI is now closed, I also want to make sure at least the context of trying to make a case isn't perpetuated here. There was a ton of discussion generated, so I'm not sure if you saw the bits on describing disruptive editing, but the issue with disruptive editing in this case is that a single edit, while problematic, doesn't appear as a severe issue on it's own (especially when it appears it can be corrected). It's the sum of those edits that needs to be looked at as WP:DE emphasizes the pattern of edits, not just isolated edits.

That being said, these two diffs were the most problematic, but were also the culmination of all the other issues:

1. "Is it an assumption of bad faith on my part that interaction has colored my opinion of your neutrality?"[[6]]. Bad faith was assumed on my part and used as the reason for not even asking about my issues with the source at the talk page.
2. ."I strongly object to your implication that I should not refer to that behavior, and I strongly object to your "last warning" threat. I reserve the right to refer to both that issue and your pervious [sic] comment here whenever the question of your neutrality arises, as I see fit."[7]. Basically this was a direct statement saying she intended to comment on editor behavior on the article talk page and not keep the focus on content like we are supposed to.

Basically these both fall under repeated misuse of the article talk page and using bad faith assumption to directly avoid simple discussion without escalating things, which distracted from the goal on actually working on the page. Assume good faith is one of our fundamental principles and comment on content not contributor (on the article talk page at least) is policy, so we're already at problematic behavior there after warnings. Then you add in the context behind that of how she handled COI concerns about me, repeated requests to handle that properly per WP:COI, and not heeding repeated advice (and warnings) on tackling things civilly in general with the direct statements that such behavior would continue and was intended. All of that combined sent it from simply problematic to ANI material for me. The pushing of COI claims improperly and assuming bad faith especially on an article talk page were my core issues with Ellen at ANI. Do those diffs help clarify where I was coming from?

Thanks. I reviewed the diffs. I agree that the talk page should be reserved for discussing the relevant content problems. However, behavioral problems with other editors do tend to come up in heated disputes, no matter how much we wish they wouldn't. I'm a bit concerned that both quotes were taken out of context of the original dispute, and I pointed out this problem in the original ANI discussion. After reviewing them, I can understand your concern, but I don't see anything actionable. In the former diff, EllenCT was getting too personal with you, but this was in response with you getting too personal with her! Again, I brought this up in the ANI. You can't cite people out of context like this and expect others to just fall into line. You were both going off topic, and you started it by first saying, "I find it surprising that you didn't even bother to open a discussion here on the edit before posting on RSN. I made it clear what the issues were with the source (rather cut and dry ones), and you defaulted to it being a secondary source without discussing the underlying issues I brought up. If you want to keep the content, you'll need to address those issues." So I understand why EllenCT responded in the way she did. For you to highlight this response and avoid the underlying comment that you made which ignited the fuse, is problematic. In the latter diff, you did the same thing again, writing "If you are not willing to resolve your perceived ideas about me on a user talk page, then regardless you still need to refrain from discussing those ideas here". I am sorry to note, that when I reviewed the discussion, I found that you, not Ellen, was the first to go "personal". To then discover that you and Jytdog attempted to take her to task on ANI after baiting her in the first place and changing the topic is the real problem. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, the quotes I made were taken exactly in context of the discussion. The interaction she mentioned was in reference to the Bayer funded secondary source I mentioned as an example that she has been going on about and used as a reason for avoiding the article talk page in reference to a specific edit. The second quote was in reference to me reminding her to discuss editor behavior on user talk pages after repeated warnings.

As for your comment about me going after EllentCT first, I highly suggest you give at least the first few sections of Talk:Neonicotinoid another look. I was civil and focusing on content even with some pretty drastic digging for COI, accusation of being pro-neonic etc. to start things on her part. I was trying to be very friendly and helpful with the topic pretty much all the way down to the July 7th edits section (and even past that), so saying baiting was going on seems very unwarranted. That section is where I started commenting directly on behavior relating to specific edits (and pointing out I didn't want to talk about editor behavior there further), and was more specific in the Summarization section to go to a user talk page. It wasn't until the very last section currently that I really went after the behavior issue rather than just warning as it was becoming an issue.

For your quotes of me, the first one was specifically in reference to not using the talk page to discuss edit concerns. That was rather nicely saying to actually have a discussion and try to reach a consensus. Nothing should have been inflammatory there at all. WP:CON is pretty clear on using the article talk page first, so I should have been the one to be offended at that point (which I was), but I chose to stick to a friendly reminder with a focus on having discussion. The second quote was my last warning to focus on article content, so it was then beyond of the point about worrying about setting her off as she was on the precipice of me starting the ANI at that point. I'm still not sure what you were seeing as problematic in those quotes as they were primarily intended to steer conversation towards the source in question. Off topic yes, but I was always trying to steer it back on topic from the get go.

It seemed apparent from your ANI post that you were reading things entirely differently, so is this clearing things up at all? Sorry for the length as there were multiple things to respond to. I'm curious what exactly you thought you were seeing as things like the baiting comment were almost exactly the opposite of what I had been trying to do this entire time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Bovine somatotropin

Thanks for your thoughtful edit summary! I've responded on the article talk page. Cheers! —Swpb^talk 14:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Honey

Hello,

Thank you for looking at my changes!

My question is regarding the article about honey and the statement:

"Some allergy sufferers wrongly believe that raw, local honey can help build tolerance to the pollen in the air."

Which cites this page as a reference:

http://www.webmd.com/allergies/features/does-honey-help-prevent-allergies

In examining that page, it turns out that the article is essentially a summary of an interview with a single, little known allergist in Pittsburgh and what he had to say. It doesn't seem to be presented as actual medical advice by WebMD, only as a recap of an interview. Additionally, the statement on the website: "No. The theory that taking in small amounts of pollen by eating local honey to build up immunity is FALSE." was made without being peer-reviewed (no other allergists examined the statements), they are actually contradicted by one known study, and the reasoning contains contradictions and falsehoods in itself, which a well-known expert on pollen and horticulture points out in this article:

http://www.foodsmatter.com/asthma_respiratory_conditions/hay_fever/articles/local-honey-ogren-11-14.html

Is the webmd article valid as a reference simply by virtue of it being hosted on webmd.com? For instance, is a "letter to the editor" on webmd.com also a valid reference?

Summary: This doesn't look like a very reliable article from WebMD, and I put in changes with several references pointing this out -- so readers can decide for themselves -- which were reverted by someone because they didn't follow a particular rule. At the same time, when I removed the line above because it didn't follow that same particular rule (the article was not actually peer-reviewed by another allergist, only by a general practitioner, and was written by a freelance journalist after interviewing a single allergist), it was reverted as well. For some reason, the rules aren't being applied consistently.

Solistide (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll respond to this on the article talk page since this is about content. In short, the WebMD article isn't the greatest source, but it is at our minimum threshold for MEDRS. There's not a strong reason to remove it under there. The study you mentioned in a primary study, so we don't mention it at all unless a review article says it's valid. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge of Emerald Ash borer "Infestation" with Emerald Ash borer

Kingofaces43, the formation of a separate page was necessary at this time because many of the subject facts covered in second page regarding Human actions induced by EAB does not fit the first. Eventually both might be merged into a streamlined example such as one completed about Dutch Elm disease. I think you would agree one of the most prevalent items making up today event is the unbelievable amount of misinformation continually supplied to the public Consciousness about this subject, including unproven theory from the best of tree Experts. So my goal is to utilize scientific peer review and field studies, along with other proven facts to correctly educate. Including successes and failures along with details about control through treatment also. Or are we supposed to produce a unique wiki page covering facts of how scientists properly apply insecticides. Yes even some facts seperatly belong within their specific wiki pages, like possible extinction of American Fraxinus placed on Fraxinus page. Or each page for 43 individual arthropods co-extinction caused by loss of ash. Separate "Infestation" page would have been central location where temporally collected items regarding main subject could be kept. Lets work together, thanks. CHICAGOCONCERTMAN (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi CHICAGOCONCERTMAN. First off, please remember to put new sections on a talk page at the bottom (this is done automatically by using New section). That and other things are outlined at WP:TPG and help make sure things stay ordered. For content on the EAB page, there's a bit behind all those edits I made awhile back, so stick with me so I can make sure I try to cover the bases:

I realize a lot of stuff I condensed was your previous work, but right now everything seems to fit together well. The merging was mainly based on parsing things down, but also how we deal with scientific content at Wikipedia. It's definitely the ideal for Wikipedia articles in general that we summarize what the scientific consensus is on topics such as this. If you haven't already, I highly suggest reading WP:SCIRS, which gives a good outline on what we should be trying to do with scientific content. Essentially, we're striving to summarize what other reliable sources say for an encyclopedia. That means pulling from review articles since they do that for us. However, part of that is because we don't generally regard primary sources (i.e. research articles) as reliable because those are communications within the scientific community. That's because those articles are intended for other researchers to evaluate, and the general public (e.g. Wikipedia editors) are not qualified to assess whether the study was valid. For us as Wikipedia editors, we cannot assign what we call due WP:WEIGHT to an idea or specific study until it's put in context through other researchers commenting on it or giving it validity (e.g. review articles). Now an introduction section can count as a mini-review article, but we generally don't need that in this topic since we have a few review articles to pull from.

With all that said, it is not our goal to describe what the primary research is. That's why I cut down a lot of the content as it was reading more like a journal than an encyclopedia (see WP:NOTJOURNAL). It's very different writing content for say an academic paper than it is for a Wikipedia article. From what I've gathered about your edits, you're very interested in generating very detailed information, which is perfectly normal for someone just getting their feet wet on scientific content here. However, the general goal of an encyclopedia is to have summarized information with references that lead to the more detailed information. A lot of the edits you're probably interested in including still largely fall under that question of due weight such as whether we even include the content or how much detail does it get. It's a learned skill, so I'm happy to explain things further at the EAB page is it's directly related or here if it's more general (i.e. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) if you have questions or something isn't clear. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

And again, I apologize for the length. I mainly wanted to make sure we were on the same page as to where I'm coming from as it can be a lot for folks to swallow that haven't dealt with it all here before. If anything, WP:WEIGHT summarizes a lot of how the content was handled by me before. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Kingofaces43 for your concise expertise on this subject. You explained everything better than I hoped for. My request to also include chronological details about how event progresses within local regions was a selfish reason on my part when attempting to produce valid reason why Cities treatment program statistics like Chicago & Milwaukee should be allowed. Filling the page with what each individual town is doing after dating EAB's arrival, and numbers of tree losses or how many are being treated would fill a phone book. Thanks' for dose of reality. Even when I Knew beginning new category on talk page continues below, faulty reasoning had me insert it above all others, just in case you do not normally check back to your talk so it could be noticed. I now understand about peer reviews validity. Scientists have learned more about our newest invasive, than any other in history, and within shortest time. I have been lucky to observe good theory become fact, and now understand at what level they become valid enough for Wiki inclusion. Every detail was helpful, and not too much for me to swallow. Also thanks for taking effort to correct my and other users entries, rather than just revert/remove. I will bring future questions to you about EAB page structure and flow. Scottie Ash seed CHICAGOCONCERTMAN (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I have the EAB page watchlisted, so if anything comes up, I'll be there. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

SYN

Study WP:SYN carefully. You have no idea how it works. MLPainless (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

MLPainless, I'd suggest scrolling down to the Related Policies section below that. NPOV is framed within the context of original research there specifically with, "But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority." I know you're not fond of particular things in fringe topics, but content like we're discussing is a pretty standard product of Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. I'd suggest just taking the time to slow down a bit and read some of those policies and things as not as contradictory here as you might think. Personally I'm going to sleep on it, so I'd suggest taking a breather as well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

CCD

I've also got a question/comment about this, regarding a recent removal of an image on Colony collapse disorder. All information on the image is properly sourced and the synthesis of the information does not imply any new arguments. As per WP:OI and WP:SYN, since there is no new explicit or implied conclusion not explicitly contained in the sources, this image is fine. Also see Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not presumed Care to justify/explain? Waiting for your response before undoing edit, no need to start an edit war. :) Mallonna (talk)

There are a few things going on with that one, but that's better left for the article's talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'll be sure to point the author (who I know irl) to your helpful comments. Mallonna (talk)

Mallonna, as I mentioned on the author's talk page, most of my comments are meant to address using the image on Wikipedia. I tried to keep my comments on their own user talk page strictly to things that would help more with it as a class assignment, so that's why there are some difference between my comments on the article and user talk pages. I will say I do like seeing students doing maps on topics like this from an instructor standpoint though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Editing a lot

Its no secret, but I am tired on posting this where there are a lot of eye's on it. I am disabled, I am trapped in my house and need assistance if I leave just to go to church or a doctors appointment. One of my distractions, to keep my sanity, is to edit wikipedia. Especially during the day, game shows and soap operas bore me to death as does most TV. I seriously doubt most people would trade places with me to be able to post more. This isnt an excuse, but reality, I wanted you to know this because of your comments on me posting to much. AlbinoFerret 18:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, I'm not sure what other folks have said, but having time like that is fine and dandy in terms of Wikipedia. They key distinction I'm trying to point out is that even though you have the opportunity to use that time, it doesn't mean you always need to use it in certain manners. Sure, you could comment whenever you see an opportunity, but one of the better skills to hone over time is deciding when not to comment and see where the conversation goes instead. Sometimes commenting too often throughout the conversation stifles it, so knowing when to just watch a conversation or just occasionally chime in can keep things from running smoothly. That's mainly where I've been going with my comments at ANI.

In a similar case, I'm sometimes online a lot while I'm at work. I'll be doing lab assays that are just mundane enough I can do a bit on the nearby computer, but require just enough attention I can't do more involved projects either, so I often use those little blocks of time on here instead. I have times when there are conversations happening on my watchlist where I technically could comment on every thread in the conversation because I have the time. I know that temptation to want to comment whenever I can, but I avoid it for the reasons I mentioned above. Sometimes that's an article talk page where I'm usually heavily involved where I might be expected to comment more. Other times it's a noticeboard conversation where I've already said my piece and it's not really going to do much good commenting on other editors' thoughts there. Basically, it's not editing a lot in conversations that's an issue, rather the amount of presence that someone has throughout a conversation and whether it's an appropriate level for that specific venue (articles, noticeboards, etc.). All in all, I'd say knowing how to step back and ask yourself if you really should make a comment is just as important as being able to write a comment you think is important.

Also, since you do have time on your side, I highly suggest diversifying the articles you work on. It not only has the benefit of helping remove the appearance as seen by others of being an SPA or being focused on a POV, but it also helps detach yourself from the drama of a contentious topic so you can edit with a clearer head and maybe pick up some things a long the way in simpler topics. Even though I pop up at ANI sometimes, I'm generally looking for ways to help editors on behavior topics when I can, so I'm happy to talk more on this if it helps. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to stay out of some conversations, Im not that good at it. I am also learning when to bow out of a conversation. I will say your comments on the AN/I section that they started on me have changed the way I deal with things on talk pages. I focus on policy and guidelines and sources. Its just more productive to do it than to base arguments on what you feel is right, even if what your saying is based on a guideline, but you dont mention it. I have always liked looking for citations and was doing it on my own, so I joined a wikiprokect on that. I also like to comment on RFC's and since I have started some I think of it as giving back when I answer one.

But I cant stay out of conversations or edits on e-cig articles when someone used a non medrs source on a medical page. An editor plagiarizes sources and introduces copyright issues again and again. An editor adds a claim but its POV because they left off half the paragraph that discounts what they added. Honestly I think if the one editor who does all that wasnt involved in the editing my postings would be cut in half. AlbinoFerret 21:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) AlbinoFerret writing things like "can't stay out of conversations" is just the kind of thing that is going to get you topic banned. You can do whatever you choose and if you think you cannot, that is a big problem. For what it is worth, Kingofaces gave you some compassionate and very good advice. Formerly98 has done the same. Wikipedia can be very addictive and people get locked in on certain issues and certain articles, especially when they have too much time on their hands. It is destructive for WP and more sadly, destructive for the individual. It happens pretty commonly, so much so that there is an essay on it - see WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. The community ends up blocking people with no self-control. So please re-read what Kingofaces wrote and seriously consider spending more time working on other articles. You can do it! Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog While the comment wasnt to you, I will reply to you. I listed the types of conversations I cant stay out of. Perhaps not the best choice of words, and I see you have jumped on one. Instead of cant, I should have said wont. I wont sit by as people do things that hurt WP or articles. I thought the types of things would have given a clue as to that. Your words are attributing motives, there is no "lock in". I have a interest in the topic, I am not driven by some compulsion or passion to edit or post. I also have an interest in protecting WP, copyright and plagiarism problems put WP at risk. AlbinoFerret 12:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

as you will. i fear you are not getting it. but good luck to you! Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I get it, contrary to your comments above that is an utter disregard of WP:AGF I am not "mentally" disabled or impaired. Mine is a purely physical disability that restricts my mobility. If you think I cant hold back on commenting your wrong, because I really wanted to reply to you about an hour after you posted that. But I thought it would be better to write this at a much later time with thought. AlbinoFerret 03:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

albinoferret, i don't think you are mentally disabled, and you responding that way really shows that you are not hearing me. all kinds of people from all walks of life get obsessed with issues in WP and with specific WP articles. many times they end up topic banned; sometimes they end up burning out and leaving, rarely, they come out of it, slowly or suddenly, and end up being productive general contributors. currently, you are locked in to the e-cig articles, and several editors have tried to call your attention to that. you can heed them or not. good luck. Jytdog (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Albino, you're getting a little prickly towards what Jytdog said when he actually hit the issues pretty straight on, so I really suggest reading that conversation again with an open mind. Your responses currently read like WP:IDHT behavior. Saying you can't stay out of conversations is a huge problem. There is no excuse for that regardless of reason, which is the spirit of that therapy wiki link. You are indeed locked in on the e-cig topic just by looking at your edit history. This is all simply observations of your behavior that we can directly see here, not attribution of motive. Instead of focusing on others, you really need to take an introspective look at your behavior here. That is the purpose of this little conversation. It's better to deal with your own problems first before worrying about other people's. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Believe me, I am conscious of my activity. I clarified above that I should have used wont instead of cant. Cant means you have an impulse that you are unable to control. Won't is a deliberate decision, in this case speaking out against things contrary to the interests of articles and WP. I will also defend people I see wrongly accused. This isnt a matter of not hearing what people say, but a reasoned choice of mine. I think your advice of stepping back and looking at situations before posting is good advice. One I will be implementing in my own way, as teaching old ferrets new tricks takes a lot of time. AlbinoFerret 12:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Conversation better for ANI

He accused me of meatpuppetry.[8][9] User:AlbinoFerret wrote "Another classic misrepresenting from you Quack." See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#No_consensus_to_remove_mist_from_the_lede_against_the_RFC. At ANI he wrote in part: "All I see is that QuackGuru just presented evidence that he himself and other editors were conspiring to edit (meatpuppets)." See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_topic_ban_for_TheNorlo. User:AlbinoFerret is not collaborating very well. QuackGuru (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC) On the contrary, you posted proof of your involvement in meatpuppets. AlbinoFerret 03:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC) You have not provided any evidence I was meatpuppeting at the e-cigs page. You are continuing to accuse me without supporting evidence. You are not making any sense. QuackGuru (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC) I didnt accuse you of anything, I only pointed out that you had provided evidence from another editor implicating three editors (including you) as meatpuppets. You posted it on AN/I, not me. I asked for a clarification on your talk page when I saw the original post you presented as a diff on AN/I, you deleted the talk page section without answering, that deletion looks like your trying to hide something. AlbinoFerret 04:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Friendly reminder, and warning....

I consider your comments on my TP unnecessarily threatening. Please refrain from making further statements on my TP, or I will take appropriate action. Atsme☯^Consult 18:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, if you truly believe overall friendly warnings and attempting to offer advice are threatening (which I don't), you are more than welcome to discuss it with the folks at ANI. I doubt you'd get much traction there though, and you would risk exposing the behavior I was trying to help you with to a potential boomerang in doing so. In the end, all I'll say is that if you end the sniping and battelground behavior on your end, people will take you more seriously when you start asking for the same from other people such as here. Other editors are getting quite tired of your behavior issues [10] [11], and I was hoping having an uninvolved editor pointing this out to you would get past the blinders for a bit. Doesn't look like that's happening though, so I'll leave you be. As I said before, you make the bed you lie in. If one day you do start to wonder why it's so hard to get anywhere in conversation on the Griffin page, I do hope you look back on the comments people have made about your behavior sincerely. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

RS/N + sources of nicotine.

I'm sorry to bother you, but this response[12] i have to understand better, since i can't follow you here. You state that "which is a summarizing paragraph to the topic" and that there are "plenty of primary sources being discussed", now when i look i find that the "plenty" to be 3 patents and one paper on chemistry. The paragraph is not examining current practice or current manufacturing processes, or even looking at environmental impacts at all. It is a summary of how nicotine can be extracted, combined with the authors own conjecture on what emissions might be. That seems like primary material to me. Here are some curious questions: A) Can it really be true that current industrial nicotine production doesn't have any controls? B) Given that an industrial production of nicotine already exists, why does the paper not examine the environmental impacts of this? (to extrapolate rather than speculate). --Kim D. Petersen 13:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

As i read the paper it is a review of what is lacking in research, not about what is known. It provides a good source for where to start your (as in scientists) research and on what papers are needed (ie. a call for papers). But it is not a very good source for factual material about how the state of reality is, since the author can't determine it, since the papers are missing. In summary: We are misusing the source, since the source isn't supposed to give answers. --Kim D. Petersen 13:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Kim D. Petersen the part that seems disputed here is where the author is providing context to what they reviewed (i.e., available production methods have potential for emission problems). That's still within the realm of conclusions of secondary source (e.g. a review stated untested new chemical X has the potential to cause cancer), and is probably the meatiest part of such sources for us as editors. How they reached that conclusion or whether it's valid or supported by what they did or didn't cite isn't for us as editors to critique. That's for other scientists to discuss in the literature. A lot of your questions above and what I've seen at RSN are seeming to drift outside of our roles as editors to question. When dealing with reviews especially, a lot of times we just have to settle for the fact that the source says something we don't like with respect to our own interpretation of the research and wait for new research to either confirm or dispute it. That's the nature of editing science topics on Wikipedia (and science in general). We largely just report what the secondary sources say. If weight is a concern, other reviews would be needed to dispute this review's findings.

For my general take on the source as a scientist only, it is indeed commenting especially on what is lacking, but it is commenting on currently available methods of production too. The author probably comments on likely potential production methods because information for methods used in current production are not readily available, or it's unknown which specific methods will be used in the future as things scale up. To go with likely production methods is exactly what would normally be done in what we call risk analysis literature, so I don't see anything out of line with the source in terms of sourcing or that would put the specific statement outside of the context of a secondary source. Just as an FYI, my plenty comment was in reference to there being no primary sources, which is untrue after I saw the sources you also mentioned. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a comment on weight as the reliable sources noticeboard isnt the proper place to discuss this. Can weight also be calculated on the number of reviews that cover this information besides this one? Also is the number of sources that reference this review in say 10 months an indicator of weight? AlbinoFerret 17:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The percentage of recent reviews making a particular claim can be a way to generally gauge weight, but I wouldn't ever impose some rule where if 4/10 reviews say something, then 40% of the content can discuss that. In general though, we just say there is a dispute in the scientific community between different ideas if reviews are making different claims. There's a lot of factors that go into determining weight, so I'd be wary of the review number approach you mentioned. Having some citations can be an indication of weight as well, but that is also very dynamic. In 10 months, you may not get many citations because it simply takes awhile for articles to be published sometimes, so you can't assume it doesn't have weight if the citation count is low. In this case too, there isn't any hard rule for citation count in relation to weight either. Overall though, you do get a better idea of weight from multiple reviews rather than citation counts of individual reviews typically. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, because I cant find another review that looks at the environmental impact, and only 5 studies have cited this review, no reviews, in the 10 months since its been published. AlbinoFerret 17:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that wouldn't set any red flags off for me right now at least. If it's the only review (which is why I stressed percentage rather than absolute number) then that's what you've got to work with in this moment in time. A general rule I use at work (not on Wikipedia) is that if there is a low citation count (which is entirely relative in each field) after two years, I might consider the review to not be widely accepted, but I'd say 10 months is too early to tell. That's outside the scope of being an editor here though, but hopefully that gives a general idea of how it would be tackled otherwise. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing

There is a difference between calling in other editors to comment, and posting a message after you have been warned that you have 3 reverts already, posting in a place with like minded editors. AlbinoFerret 05:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, if you believe that editors at the Wikiproject would be opposed to certain edits, I would hope that would be a consideration to rethink where your standpoint might lie in a general consensus. Looking over WP:CANVAS, it looks like Yobol was pretty much right in line with it as people are welcome it invite more uninvolved editors in, especially after reverts have occurred and discussion should start.

This is just my take on the article from afar, but the vibe I've seen at some posts seems to be that because a lot of WikiProject Medicine folks don't think along the same lines as you and some others, you don't want them being alerted. That would almost be at the opposite extreme of canvassing or maybe wanting a sort of selective notification instead. I'm not trying to say that's what you actually think (I don't know and don't try to get in editors' heads when trying to assume good faith), but you should be wary about that appearance of it at least as that's what some of your posts seem to suggest. I'd suggest scaling back on the canvassing accusations a bit. Wikiprojects are pretty much always fine to post at (WT:MED would be the most relevant project for this question anyways), but at this point you could have canvassing if individual users were contacted or there were very non-neutral messages being posted. I haven't seen that recently, so if you're a bit more cautious about throwing around the term canvassing, you might prevent some unneeded feather ruffling that could make future discussions go smoother. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a little more than notified, copied from the canvass "needs to be either removed or qualified because a minority of the authors have previously received money or honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies" This is calling for someone to remove an edit because they cant. AlbinoFerret 06:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yobol specifically said "needs to be either removed or qualified . . ." That bolded part is the important piece that makes it a neutral posting. It's giving the two obvious options: remove or keep with appropriate justification. The question is about the minority (assumedly a non-controversial detail) of authors who've had previous affiliations. I guess I'm not seeing anything particularly non-neutral about the post at all as it explains the overall question pretty well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

See this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who#Redirecting_.27The_Doctor.27_to_Doctor_Who.27s_.27The_Doctor.27

and participate in it before reverting the redirect. μηδείς (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

μηδείς, I'm not sure where you're coming from, but I've been talking at that discussion for awhile now. Besides that, we don't determine consensus at Wikiprojects remotely as occurred there for effects much wider in scope than just the single topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't used a primary source but a PEER REVIEW STUDY. Please don't lie.

Milk is the sole provider of casein, which was shown to promote prostate cancer in a study published in the August 2014 edition of the World Journal of Men's Health. Researchers Park SW, Kim JY, Kim YS, Lee SJ, Lee SD and Chung MK showed that "PC3 cells treated with 1 mg/mL of α-casein and casein showed increased proliferation (228% and 166%, respectively), and the proliferation of LNCaP cells was also enhanced by 134% and 142%, respectively", concluding that "The milk protein, casein, promotes the proliferation of prostate cancer cells such as PC3 and LNCaP" placing Casein as the highest individual natural occurring promoter of prostate cancer in men.[14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.202.87 (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Dont think I didnt hear you.

The discussion we had here was not ignored, if you look further than 100 edits back in my contributions you will see I do edit at least one other page that is not health or e-cig related, Bitcoin. I think your accusation of me as a SPA is unfounded. AlbinoFerret 22:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

After you were previously accused of being a WP:SPA you then started editing other articles. Hmm. QuackGuru (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I have edited other articles, I am a member of Wikiproject clean up, all previous to the discussion. That discussion did not label me as a SPA. I was referring to a recent post he made. But it was suggested in that older discussion that I broaden my editing more, which I did. AlbinoFerret 22:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You've still got a tight grip on this controversial topic in your editing history. The focus of my previous comments was to back off on e-cigs and work in other areas as well. I'm only seeing a small amount of involvement in those few other articles relative to e-cigs. The main point was to get out (not saying entirely) of something you're apparently very passionate about and get experience in other less controversial topics first. Those edits you mentioned aren't enough for me at least to not see a single purpose account when I look at your history. That's why I'm supportive of the ban so you will primarily detach from the topic for awhile. Either way, I'll asking that this conversation be left at ANI so as not to split things up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the passion part, I just find the topic fascinating. The topic here wasnt to split up the discussion. But do as you wish. AlbinoFerret 18:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Syngenta

Your first-ever edit to Syngenta was reverting me, removing well-cited and relevant text, which you then repeated. Can you explain that? Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet, it should be pretty clear from my edit summaries, but if you or anyone feels strongly about readding the content that's been out of the article for awhile, now is the time to discuss and justify those readditions. It's pretty apparent that others don't agree with the content being in the article (moreso from a weight perspective than reliable sourcing), so now would be the time to bring your reasoning forward so people can discuss the various sections. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm asking how you showed up at the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

what a bizarre question! how did you first show up at the article, Bink? for fuck's sake look at the guy's contribs; he has edited all kinds of things about bugs and pesticides, including atrazine, the subject of the content. fuck duh. Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Not an explanation. I'm concerned that back-channel methods are being used to bring obstructionist tactics to the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

you didn't answer the question either. maybe back-channel methods are being used to bring obstructionist tactics to the article but you are the one receiving them! maybe you are the astroturfer! It must be one way or the other, since there is only Good and Evil in the Universe, and There Can Be Only One Version that is God's Truth^TM and Any Other Version is Evil and Can Only Be The Product of Corruption^TM... i guess. So gee are you the corrupt and evil one or is Kingofaces? how will we ever know? Shall we throw each of you in a pond and see who floats and who sinks? Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not involved this time. I'll just note that Binksternet, Jytdog and I were involved in a very similar edit war on this article in March 2014, along the same ideological lines. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet, Jytdog pretty much hit the nail on the head to that strange question. I edit broadly in entomology and agriculture related topics. I gather you've been here for some time, so I'm sure there are some articles you have on your watchlist that you haven't edited yet because you didn't see edits to make at the time, but decided to watch it because it fell in your interest area? If it really helps you sleep at night, I either came across the Syngenta page either when editing the atrazine article or one of the other pesticide articles some time ago. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

AFD

My mistake, it was the guy just before you ...

Dow Corning

Hey there, I'm reaching out because you've previously been gracious enough to review some COI edit requests I made at Dow Corning. I'm hoping you could take a look at another suggestion I have for the page. We're hoping to add some more depth to the article, and as an initial step I've drafted up some additional information for the "History" section and shared it here. I would be extremely grateful if you could take a moment and provide some feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Mary, I'll be out of commission for a bit here, but I'll check it out when I have time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Totally understandable - thank you for replying so quickly. Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - CAM

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Syngenta

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syngenta. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Mundane claim

You wrote at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that "In terms of non-medical vs. non-medical, 1. (just added formatting to your original post) would be non-medical and is pretty mundane as you say...". I added only 1 as it is a mundane claim rather than add all the other content. Thanks for your input. QuackGuru (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru, maybe I'm just a little fuzzy coming off vacation, but could you link to what specific post of mine you're mentioning at RSN? What you're mentioning doesn't seem ring any bells for something I posted recently at least, so I'm guessing it might have been awhile ago? Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 183#Postgraduate Medical Journal. QuackGuru (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing, I entirely forgot about that conversation (obviously meant medical vs. non-medical). I try to pop by RSN somewhat regularly, so if e-cig does keep coming up there I'll try to respond as most people seem to have been driven off from it when it comes up. I don't have any intention of getting involved on the topic itself for obvious reasons, but I'm perfectly fine commenting as an outside editor at RSN or elsewhere. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the current text: "A 2014 editorial stated that e-cigarettes have concentrated liquids that are packed in colorful containers and combined with flavors that appear to be made to attract children.[45] It was concluded that it is recommended that e-cigarettes be kept in a safe place, where children and pets do not have access them.[45]" I added the mundane claim rather than all the other text to move things forward. QuackGuru (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, so I think your version there should be fine. I should state that when I said mundane, it seemed like something that shouldn't be contentious at all and perfectly fine from a reliability standpoint. Just out of curiosity, has something related to this content come up again, or were you just going through old RSN posts?

I was going through old posts and wanting to make sure I didn't misunderstand your comment. QuackGuru (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem at all then it seems. Good luck working on the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Foie gras

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Foie gras. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

mirror

Fuck off and don't think your "warning" has meaning. You did not talk. -~~

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Normally when proposing new edits, one should not edit war if there change is not accepted, but rather come to the talk page to discuss per WP:BRD Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

-DePiep (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)