User talk:Jytdog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Jytdog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Edcolins (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Special:Notifications


Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

please help translate this message into the local language
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Brofiscin Quarry, Groes Faen[edit]

I appreciate the work you are doing, but it is not correct to say that it was "one of the most contaminated..... until its remediation". It almost certainly still is one of the most contaminated sites , but now its got a concrete cap on it. The cap may well limit the surface drainage issues but the contaminants remain inside the site and available to the wider world when the concrete degrades or when the leachate finds its way out through the ground-water. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   11:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

please discuss on the article Talk page. future readers should have a record of the discussion and if it is here, it is not part of the article's record. Jytdog (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem. I prefer to raise minor issues with the current editor first in case it is an oversight or unintentional but am happy to deal with in other ways.  Velella  Velella Talk   12:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
it is a simple discussion on talk. Jytdog (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated...[edit]

on the issues raised at User_talk:2over0#Bit_of_a_tiff_about_a_source. This isn't meant as, or to be construed as, canvassing because it's about a simple matter of fact, which I'm asking you about because you're scientifically literate and objective. I've asked a couple other clueful users, who I trust to be objective, to comment as well. Thanks! regards, Middle 8 (POV-pushingCOI) 17:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your asking, but I have decided that those articles are too toxic to get involved with - there is no room for a reasonable middle. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Too bad, although I know what you mean, and my wikistress is high; normally I wouldn't spend so much time on this, but I will be gratified if editors get it right, and highly, highly amused, in a rueful way, if they get it wrong. But anyway. If good editors are driven away, "the terrorists have already won." With 2/0 and Brangifer editing, and Doc James, we're actually moving in a nice, objective direction. Hope you'll change your mind should the editing environment improve; you're a great editor, and have been a breath of fresh air. --Middle 8 (POV-pushingCOI) 18:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Know the feeling ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) me too. They'll get their come uppance eventually. Enough rope, etc. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Just wish you, and to a lesser degree Alexbrn, were more willing/able to evaluate on the merits, no matter who posts. Oh well -- that's where you're at; everybody has to be somewhere. --Middle 8 (POV-pushingCOI) 18:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

map from http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/ge-map/[edit]

Huh... I made it from "BlankMap-World-large", which is in wikimedia commons, so there's no copyright. Info used from their webpage is also available everywhere else (news pages, see links), so there's no copyright either. That's just a list of countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Déchaîné (talkcontribs) 14:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It says right on the file name: "World map of GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) regulations. A CC BY-SA 4.0 version of http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/ge-map/ made from "BlankMap-World-large"" - it is either downloaded directly from them or it is a derivative work of the CFS map. Either way, with no license from CFS this is copyvio. Please take it down from everywhere you have put it until CFS releases it freely. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I downloaded "BlankMap-World-large", a grey-and-white world map, from wikipedia commons. I've added colors on this map myself, using GIMP, and infos found on various webpages (foreign government websites, news pages, recent (2014) infos for Kenya and Kyrgyzstan, etc). I've removed the different green colors now, because yes, I agree, it can be copyrighted research. All other infos can be found on other websites. Removing the CFS source doesn't change anything. You know, I'll get 66 news pages for the 66 countries, if you prefer. ;) Le Déchaîné (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Removed from the pages, I'll do a better job by adding more links soon. Le Déchaîné (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
You can ask other people's advice if you want. Wikipedia:Media copyright questions but wikipedia is really serious about copyright - please don't do anything to legally harm WP. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Re[edit]

Hi Jytdog, i think the recent edit at Z is notable, however the article will likely never be accurate in patient anamnesis/physical examination/diagnosis. --prokaryotes (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your point, sorry. Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Since the case discussed here is one of the first, we should add information when available, thus info in regards to when treatment begun, or mention briefly previous health conditions. --prokaryotes (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
i don't agree (and fairly strongly) and am curious as to why you think that kind of information is within the scope of this article. shall we take this over to the article talk page? You have my permission to copy/paste or cut/paste everything I wrote here... or give me your permission, and I will do it. or start over! as you will. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it's worth to mention, however if that information isn't in the article i won't mind either, that's why i cautioned above about accuracy. If you like to discuss it further go ahead i might chip in later. Cheers. --prokaryotes (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments re: my COI[edit]

Appreciated your thoughtful comments as always (it is always especially fun to hear thoughful comments about myself ;-) ). Based on your feedback, and Guy's and others particularly at my COI/N, I rewrote it, FWIW: User:Middle_8/COI. cheers, --Middle 8 (POV-pushingCOI) 08:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks good! Jytdog (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I probably won't succeed in this unsubtle attempt to get you to reconsider your decision to disengage, but either way, I thought of your comments about a "reasonable middle" at acupuncture when I wrote this: [1]. Makes sense right? Acu is largely a placebo (i.e. mostly general rather than specific effects); notable places like Harvard, Yale et. al. use it for its general effects. Nu? Anyway, I need to devote less time to it as well. The article has been making me crazy lately, and when I say "the article", make no mistake, I mean "my choice to focus so much energy and attention on the article". :-P Happy editing! --Middle 8 (contribsCOI) 09:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Biofuel & socks[edit]

Jytdog - I see there's a bit of an edit war taking place on Biofuel. Reviewing edit history, it appears to me that you're correct about AesopSmart / Whoisjoking is engaging in sock use. Further, it appears that AesopWise may also be a sock. Do you know how this is best handled?--E8 (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

you did the right thing with the 3RR warning. if the person persists after the warning, we can pursue action at 3RR and if the socking continues, at WP:SPI. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sub-Title: "Persecution" in WP article "Judaism"[edit]

@Jytdog:, Shalom! Persecution of Jews in Arab lands was not limited to the Almohads of Spain or North Africa. It was also prevalent in Yemen, where the Mawza Exile is sketched deep in the sub-conscious of every Yemenite Jew, and even described in the Jewish Encyclopedia and in many other Hebrew writings. Jews were scattered throughout the Diaspora, and, as in many other places, persecution of Jews in Yemen also had its dark periods. I wish to cordially make one correction in what I was wrongly accused of doing, namely, of WP:EDITWARRING. This is certainly not true in my case, as I can prove forthrightly. When my first edit was deleted, the reason given was that it lacked sources. I then reposted the edit, with a reference to the source. Then I was told that the sources were not adequate enough, so I changed the sources, bringing down better sources, and merging my edit with the previous editor's edit - without diminishing aught from the previous edit. Still my newest edit was deleted. Is there no place here for mentioning the sufferings of the Jews of Yemen in the 17th century?Davidbena (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

please discuss on the article talk page. happy to respond there! Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please check[edit]

Try looking at their other edit. No discussion is really necessary...please revert.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

don't care about the editor, i care about the edit. (even broken clocks are correct twice a day) I opened a discussion on the Talk page - please respond there. thx. Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a faulty philosophy because it may find you restoring edits for a banned editor, sockpuppet, or vandal for which you could be held responsible.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
we differ on that. i will happily provide reasoning for each edit i make, and happily apologize for any errant edit i make if someone provides solid reasoning that it was wrong with a basis in policy, guideline or plain old common sense. you've provide no such reasoning... let me say that i do appreciate your work cleaning up after vandals and POV pushers. thanks for that! Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) A good edit made by a bad person is still a good edit. Our first priority should be the encyclopædia, and it strikes me as terribly petty to intentionally degrade the encyclopædia because of some other disagreement with a person that we've ostracised. Berean Hunter, I greatly respect your judgment on other things, but here I must disagree. If anybody is "held responsible" for a good edit made by somebody else, give me a link to that discussion, and I'll defend them. bobrayner (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Another (talk page stalker). This caught my eye, so I went back and looked at the edits. At the Race (biology) page, I agree with Berean Hunter's revert, no question about it. But at the Hybrid (biology) page, I agree with Jytdog that the edit was, on its merits, a good edit. If I try to parse the argument here, I think that it is true that when any editor restores a reverted edit, that editor is responsible for having done so – but I think that in this case, Jytdog has nothing to apologize for, because the restored content improved the page. That also doesn't mean that it was wrong of Berean Hunter to have reverted both edits by the IP: it is reasonable, on the face of it, to revert what may appear to be bad edits from what appears to be a disruptive editor. But when another editor comes along, evaluates the content in question, and makes a responsible decision to restore some good content, then that's just the Wikipedia editing process working the way that it is supposed to. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Tryptofish is right on this. We let that process play out at Talk:Hybrid (biology)#Between two "races" where I'm content letting the editors there decide. There is a pre-existing conflict over these terms that I don't want to be baited into engage in.:) My comments above about a faulty philosophy is as a general one because I knew that Jytdog didn't deliberate on anything but the edit itself and no other criteria...hence, my use of the word may and I should have included the word someday. I didn't know that this editor that we were discussing was one of those (banned editor, sockpuppet, or vandal) and I think Bobrayner has taken it that I implied that they were. I didn't mean to give that impression.
Based on policy, we do sometimes rip editors' contributions out wholesale. That happens because bans apply to all editing, good or bad and it is meant to be a discouragement to them that none of their edits stick. When considering edits by and on behalf of banned editors, "...the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." Many socks are considered de facto banned and their edits may be reverted without having to analyze each one. Wikipedians are also not allowed to proxy "good" edits.
I appreciate Jytdog's comment above "let me say that i do appreciate your work cleaning up after vandals and POV pushers. thanks for that!" and he should know that I appreciate his work as an editor also. :) I never considered this as anything much on the disagreement scale...we just went back to editing.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
yep :) Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── thanks everybody, interesting discussion. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No hard feelings. Group hug? 718smiley.png bobrayner (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacksun1942 (talkcontribs) 20:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI[edit]

Hi Jytdog. I wanted to let you know that I opened an incident report on EllenCT at the administrator's noticeboard. This isn't a request for comment (although you're welcome to if you want), but rather just letting you know since you spent quite a bit of time and effort trying to help Ellen out and that I cited some of your talk page responses. Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Request Feedback on Fluoride Controversy[edit]

Could you please take a few minutes to consider the following?

My intention is to have a fair and accurate representation of the fluoridation controversy. To that end, I have read publications from the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60, and 70s as well as more current material. I’ve read over a thousand pages. It is hard to pull a few pages out of context, but I identified a few pages in 3 of those resources for which I’d appreciate your feedback.

Item 1 This entire excerpt is wonderful, but back up to Chapter 1 in this 2010 book to look at Tables 1, 2 and 3. Also read the section “WHO says so” which focuses on studies from all decades.
http://books.google.com/books?id=KPn4AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT153&lpg=PT153&dq=books+by+philip+sutton+fluoride&source=bl&ots=lhg0T_8ZrG&sig=RMdFFYKnJgIVimwtfrf49fbtw9U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=P-gcVNjZD9edygTl2YDYDQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=books%20by%20philip%20sutton%20fluoride&f=false

Item 2 The 1960 book by Philip R.N. Sutton is entirely based on the analysis of the initial studies. He was a statistician and didn't have a POV regarding fluoridation, just the way the trials were conducted. I don't know whether you'd want to read the entire book, but it at least proves that there were objections based on something other than "communists" in the 1950s. I've included a couple of shorter options, below. He was cited in the 2010 book above.

Item 3"' The first 250 pages in The Great Dilemma (1978) are primarily science, and I found them fascinating. Sections, mostly clinical notes on patients, are reprinted from Waldbott’s 1965 book. George Waldbott was an internationally recognized allergist and research scientist who first identified penicillin allergies, human anaphylactic shock and the connection between what was then called idiopathic asthma and smoking.
You can find these references on www dot whale dot to /b/Waldbott_DILEMMA_ocr.pdf

Excerpt, p 380:

“For nearly a decade after 1931, the PHS sought to remove excessive fluoride from water supplies because of endemic mottled teeth. But after 1940, the balance began to tilt in the opposite direction - to augment water supplies with fluoride. On the basis of studies on a very small number of healthy young men, plus limited surveys of health effect in natural fluoride areas, PHS scientists concluded that fluoride had no significant adverse effect on health, except for occasional mild mottling….. “
  • pp 304-305 In 1939, the level was 0.1, then they raised it to 1.0 to 1.5 in 1946 based on based on research of five young healthy men.
  • pp 260- (the initial scientific debate of the 40s into the 50s.)
  • pp 285 - 289 WHO vote and American Academy of Allergy statement
  • pp. 301…. 1938 Mellon, Kettering, Cox & ADA
  • p 344 succinct experiment re periodontal disease, missing teeth with age and kidney disease in lab experiment. Books includes other references to gum diseases and missing teeth in locales with high natural fluoride on 4 continents, including in USA.... but this conversation is primarily about the controversy.

Item 4 A short 2005 article from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons re science & controversy: http://www.jpands.org/vol10no2/kauffman.pdf

Again, my purpose is to have a fair and unbiased Wikipedia representation of the fluoridation controversy. As it stands, it is incomplete and inaccurate. I thought perhaps bringing it to your talk page would be more appropriate. Thank you.

Seabreezes1 (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks for asking my opinion! not sure why you are not posting this on the relevant flouride page where everybody who is interested can give you feedback...ii suggest you do that, and i will respond there. Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)