User talk:Jytdog

Hi I am taking a wikibreak. See you in a while. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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)

Citation suggestion

Thanks for your contributions to growth hormone article! If you haven't seen this yet, please check out User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool (instructions). Given a PubMed ID, one can quickly produce a full citation that can be copied and pasted into a Wikipedia article. This tool can save you a lot of work and ensure that the citations are displayed in a consistent manner. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Vitamin d

I did a revert of your recent edits, it seemed to be the best thing, the problem is that vitamin d actually isn't a vitamin(!) I would have done a partial revert but it was too complicated. Feel free to reapply your edits without this issue, sorry for any extra work.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 14:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure sounds reasonable. And have changed with slight modification / condensation of the text.Doc James(talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

thanks!Jytdog (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Those strange scripts where page numbers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Keep up the good work! Arcandam (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hey, I just made two little edits and I don't need to do anymore. Feel free to overwrite my changes, let me know when you're doing for a moment, and I'll go back in to make them. Steven Walling • talk 23:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Merging GMO#Regulation with GMO-Regulation

I knew that wuz an option, and I wuzn't willing to take it, because someone reverted my deletion. I also knew that deletion might've eaten some points about regulation, and considering that the material is inherently regional, I wuzn't exactly fascinated by the job. Thanks again. 142.59.53.48 (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog. A while ago I got interested in sorting out the GM articles, but found it a hard slog and moved onto other interests. I have only just returned (actually I am not really returning yet) and noticed the large amount of work you have done in this area. Have not had a detailed look into your edits, but most of what I saw looked like an improvement and mirrors many ideas I had. So just thought I would give a bit of encouragement and offer a draft I started writing on regulation before I got bored (see User:Aircorn/Sandbox). It focuses more on the laboratory regulations and you are welcome to use any information from it if you so wish. Keep up the good work. AIRcorn (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment

With regard to this (which isn't me) - IIRC it's bad form to refer to "this article" within the body of the article. (That actually includes statements like "see this article," but I think that's less of an issue.) Normally you would put it in italics at the top of the article, either manually or by using a template, e.g. {{for|genetically modified organisms|Genetically modified organism}}, and you get

For genetically modified organisms, see Genetically modified organism.

If there's too much material, the other option is to make a template, e.g. Template:Evolutionary biology, which can then be placed on each one of the associated pages. I think that's what I would recommend. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup and the suggestion! I put a lot a work into deconvoluting topics covered in those articles so they are clean and organized... i know that paragraph is clumsy but i wanted readers to know what to expect and where to find what they were looking for. Very open to better ways of doing it, and i hope a "good form" way! I am too unsophisticated to manage a new template. There is one for genetic engineering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Genetic_engineering but it dwells at the bottom of pages.. I don't know how to get it to the top where people see it..... thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The one that I linked goes at the top of the page. I'm not very good at wiki language either, but what I generally do is open up the edit screen and experiment with something that already exists, using the Preview function to confirm what I'm doing. I didn't know that there was already a template though, so I suppose it might get deleted as a duplication - I guess using notices in italics might be best after all. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

For example, I think something like this would work (no templates necessary). This article is about the history, methods, and applications of genetic engineering. Related articles cover genetically modified organisms, crops, food, regulation, and controversies. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This is sticking with you - you would really like to see this changed, I guess. I am OK with that suggestion... but part of the goal was also to guide readers what to expect in each. Would you be OK if it were a bit longer and had the explanatory material? If not, I am happy to compromise with what you suggest....Jytdog (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really, just noticed that you hadn't answered and trying to be helpful. :-) As above, I'm not really sure what the best option is, but I think someone will probably change it at some point. Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to try to head this off at the pass... I will follow your suggestion. Are the italics for me, or do you think it should be posted in italics? Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It's usually posted in italics. To continue with the previous example, the Evolution page has two lines of italics at the top. The Manual of Style guideline is at Wikipedia:Hatnote. But actually, reading over that guideline, it says that using the italicized notes to link to related articles is discouraged, so I'm not sure what to do. Perhaps you should ask for a second opinion. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the hatnote guideline. I agree, a note like this as a hatnote would definitely be out of bounds... I think I am just going to leave the paragraph. It is holding so far.. I've been watching page counts and plenty of people are reading and leaving it. And hopefully finding it useful, which is the point. By far the heaviest trafficked article is the GM food one. I expected more people to jump to controversies

Have to agree with Arc about those paragraphs. How about removing the paragraphs and replacing them with hatnotes using the {{about}} template. It would read something like this on the Genetically modified food page.

This page is about all genetically modified food. For genetically modified food crops, see Genetically modified crops. For all genetically modified organisms, see Genetically modified organisms.

In my opinion those three pages are the only ones that really need this navigational aid. The regulation and controversy articles are really just WP:Content forks and should have their own heading in the other articles and be linked using a {{main}} template. The Genetic engineering article should really just be an overview article (see WP:Summary style). One way to think of it is to imagine what topic someone is looking for when they type something into the search bar. If it could be more than one article then a hatnote may be appropriate (i.e many people equate GMOs with GM food and GM crops is a suitably large subsection of food that it is reasonable to think someone might be looking for information on one of them when typing GMO). I made the {{Genetic engineering}} template a few years ago and could make a similar one that will be displayed at the top of articles if you want (it will look similar to {{Genetics2}} which is at the top of the Genetic engineering article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Aircorn! It is still not clear to me that hatnotes are appropriate but if you feel strongly about it, please give it a shot. The reason why I mentioned all five articles in that little paragraph is that content from all five was mooshed across them all. (Well originally there were 4 - I created the GM crops article.) I've been checking the page hit stats here http://stats.grok.se/ from time to time and the most trafficked articles are GMOs and GM food. I am surprised that more people are not going to the GM food controversies article. But before I put the paragraph in, I kept finding that editors wanted to insert text about the controversy everywhere, and I kept having to revert and point them to content that already existed in the Controversies article, or if it was new (rare) add that content there. Afterwards, not so much. So if you change this, I very much hope that you include the Controversies article in the hatnote, at least to point it out up front to editors who really want to see that this content is in Wikipedia. Finally, as currently configured, the GMO article and the genetic engineering article are very closely related. That's why I included it. But on average a bit over 2000 people look at the GM food everyday (spikes up to 4000 some days), and people are leaving the paragraph alone. Also the GM Crop article was just assessed by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics and the assessor didn't mess with it.. so those are arguments for leaving it as. But as I said, if you feel strongly about it, have at it. But please include the controversies article in it. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Not strongly, it is just something that I have never really come across here before. Doesn't mean other articles don't do it (shes a big place). Most articles I see seem to follow a hierarchical format. In an ideal situation genetic engineering would be the parent article (with Genetics the grandparent) and should contain sections on history, genetically modified organisms, methods, applications and regulation, objections etc with a main to longer more detailed articles. GMO should contain sections on history, crops, animals, food, methods, regulations, objections etc with mains to longer articles etc. It does get tricky with food and crops as there is a lot of overlap and not all food is crops or crops food. There is nothing wrong with adding information in more than one place if it is notable enough. That way readers should get an overview at most articles and be just a click away from the one with more detail. I am feeling a little inspired by you work so might jump back on the horse. AIRcorn (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful, it would be great to work with you! On what to cover in each article, hopefully you can see that I tried to create a rigorous structure where things are actually described (e.g. talk about agriculture in GM crops, talk about actual food in the food article, etc) in a focused way in various articles and sections, and used generic stubs on matter from other articles, taken from the ledes of those articles. This seems to be holding up pretty well as people read and editors pass through. But this is such an emotional issue for people and editors come by and want to drive the controversy into every section you can think of. But, it would be great to ride with you!Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Jytdog I think your reply to Wayne in the Talk section "Possible Problems" of the article 'Genetically modified food controversies' on 29th October is one of the best-written pieces I have seen on this subject. Absolutely excellent!! Please keep it up!SylviaStanley (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For catching that. I somehow confused them, probably because Chris Hansen made some statements on Myriad as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Source

The NYT article you added to Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories in this diff predates the replaced NYT editorial by almost two years and seems to be a lot less detailed. Do you oppose including the latter (in addition)?   — C M B J   13:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Messages

Also, let me know if you can gain access to Factiva.   — C M B J   13:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi Jytdog, I just wanted to say thanks for all your work on GMO articles recently - you're doing a good job! SmartSE (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

how to treat edits from students doing educational assignments

Hi Jytdog. I saw your comment on Pharaoh of the Wizards' talk page. That template means that the person who made that edit is working on that article as part of a class assignment (in the case Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, this class). So they are probably a new user, doing their best to improve the article but not necessarily experienced with the Wikipedia way of doing things. In terms of the actual edits, you don't need to treat them any differently than you would any other edits; if they don't improve the article or need to be modified, feel free to revert or aggressively modify. It's a good idea to point out your talk page on comments on the student's own talk page, though, as students often don't use their watchlists much. --Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

wisegeek as a reliable source

You asked about wisegeek as a reliable source.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_95#Wisegeek_as_a_reliable_source
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_37#Wisegeek
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_87#Wisegeeks.com_and_Rust_Belt
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_28#Wisegeek.com

my read is that it is generally considered very low quality/unreliable. What do you think? Before I deleted it I googled extensively and found nothing to back that up. Not even the website of the Sebewaing, Michigan chamber of commerce, which if it were true, one would think would say it. http://www.sebewaingchamber.com/ Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC) amended to say "low quality" whoops)Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I may have to agree with you now about wisegeek, but I still found a number of sources calling Sebewaing the "Sugar Beet Capital". Granted, these sources may have originally obtained their information from Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what to do.--Asher196 (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Monsanto and Wikileaks". Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Please don't get frustrated - this is how Wikipedia discussion usually works. You've been doing a lot of really important work, and I hope you carry on. Just remember to assume good faith, focus on content, and argue based on policy whenever possible. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just wanted to say that your additions to the Mayo v. Prometheus article are truly fantastic. Keep up the great work! Verkhovensky (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Solid

I just saw your work on canola oil. Nice, nuanced, ref-based edits. Excellent stuff, kudos. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Jatropha

Please comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jatropha#Why_the_merge.3F --Pjacobi (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated

Hi,
I think that Arianmoshefi and ToreBKrudtaa are different people. You might have noticed a person's name all over the website which ToreBKrudtaa links to most frequently; Arianmoshefi did not link to that site at all. More generally, I think there are other differences in the content they added. bobrayner (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for improving the patent article! Edcolins (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Edcolins (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your help . . .

Just a note to acknowledge and appreciate your help with my students' projects. They are trying to make their learning matter beyond the classroom and supportive editors like you certainly promote the success of the WP Education projects. TomHaffie (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Seralini. Undue Weight.

Everything else in the "Health" section are positions by major organizations so to provide the position of just Seralini seems like undue weight. The statement itself may be true but there should be a better reliable source for it. BlackHades (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC) If you can find a better source please feel free to use it!Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Obstacles to Human Studies in GM food

The new section on obstacles to human testing that you added, I feel like instead of being in the Health lede, it should have its own section under Health. Perhaps titled "Human testing" or "Human testing obstacles" or something like that. What do you think? BlackHades (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! I half expected it to get deleted or shortened... it was something I had been wanting to do some research on and I did that.Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

trust of regulators re. gmo

For this conversation - The wikileaks cable shows the extreme political clout of the GMO movement. This link: http://www.biointegrity.org/list.html Shows regulatory problems.Pottinger's cats (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

On the organic food page, you state: " in past few months I have worked a lot on the genetically engineered crops/food/controversy/regulatory pages, as well as Monsanto's -- mostly getting rid of a lot of negative BS that anti-GMO forces had piled in, and trying to add high quality, well sourced information - keeping whatever of the original negative content I could find reliable sources for. The work has led me here. I have no bias one way or the other in all this except to include content that is scientifically well grounded and is stated in a NPOV way as per the 5 pillars. Some folks may consider the following a bias: I trust regulators and I don't accept (what i consider to be) conspiracy theories about dramatic regulatory capture of food regulatory agencies."

I wish that regulators really were independent, but there is demonstrable corporate control of policy in this realm. The following UK Guardian article shows the extent of this, that a US embassy cable recommended drawing up list of countries for 'retaliation' over opposition to genetic modification: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops

If you want a challenge to your views on this, see the following, particularly chapter 2, regarding the case of Putzai: http://www.scribd.com/doc/64711742/Seeds-of-Destruction

You may finds a lot of interesting documentation to extract to further improve wikipedia's articles on this, which is your project.Pottinger's cats (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

An ambassador isn't a regulator, far from it. An ambassador who doesn't like it that France has tried to ban GM products does not imply that he has been paid to do it or it's part of any nefarious plot (it's a US product the French where trying to ban, it's not that surprising that the ambassador didn't like it). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

:) Agreed that diplomats and politicians are not regulators - that is what i wrote on cat's talk page, where i replied to him/her.Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The items I cited at the bottom of the page, these two - 1) http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/60-why-genetically-engineered-food-is-dangerous-new-report-by-genetic-engineers 2) http://www.biointegrity.org/list.html deal with the arguments you have raised in general, and not with the book under examination. I responded to your most recent points re. the NY Times article.Pottinger's cats (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The second link is a clear case of problems with regulators.Pottinger's cats (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Tags, edit summary, etc.

Yeah, thanks for your edit summary "edited text to respond to tags. deleted tags. i wish people would fix things instead of just sticking tags on." You are completely right. I don't like tags either. Sometimes, they might be useful however, especially when the contributor who added the tags did not really know how to fix the problems. Please assume good faith. Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Check 21 Act

Hey I just got done reformatting that article Check 21 Act. I saw ur edits co-ocurring. Can u go back and make sure I didn't wipe any of your edits? Any help appreciated. Am working on other related articles too. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For building neutral, well-sourced content on articles that are often controversial and difficult to work with. bobrayner (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

BRCA mutation

I have added some references for the more controversial issues. As far as I can see most of the other statements should not need references because either the references are in the body of the section or those are trivial summary statements. Please have a look again to see which you feel are really essential. Richiez (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV in Genetically Modified Food

I opened a discussion on creating a NPOV lede in the talk section of Genetically Modified Food. Would like to invite you to the discussion and interested in your thoughts on the matter. BlackHades (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for catching my mistake! Khimaris (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for your diligence on working on controversial articles, which can be very difficult to edit. Yobol (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Horizontal gene transfer of RoundUp resistance to weeds

Hi, I know this is a touchy issue on both sides, and I didn't understand some of your edit summaries, so I'm hoping we can have a discussion of the sources and their merits at Talk:Glyphosate#Horizontal gene transfer to resistant weeds. I'm not a biologist or an activist, but I am a professional science writer, and I've been discussing this with two other journalists with postdoc biology training, so I'm pretty sure I've got the basics right. In any case, I'd love to read your thoughts. Neo Poz (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS

Are you up for a side conversation about MEDRS? I don't think I know what your concern is. Is it more like "People keep saying that MEDRS applies to material that I don't think it should cover" or more like "People are getting into disputes because no two people have the same definition of biomedical information"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I am happy to talk. More the latter, but I would not say "no two people"- just there are too often disputes about what the subject matter for the policy is. I reach for secondary sources from the biomed literature first so I have not been dinged for violating MEDRS myself. But I feel that if the policy were more clear the community would benefit, as these kinds of disputes could be more often quickly and cleanly resolved. Of course no policy can cover every situation and there will always need to be interpretation - and I know that making policy is hard and the result is never perfect. I respect what you all have achieved, a great deal! But I believe that sometimes policy can sometimes actually promote conflict when it creates ambiguity, and I feel that naming the subject three different ways, tersely each time, is unnecessarily ambiguous. I know my argument would be more compelling if I had data but I do not - just my impression. Anyway thanks again for offering to talk. I am very interested in your thoughts! Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I was also curious. My impression is that there are misconceptions about MEDRS. Biosthmors (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I share that impression. A more clear statement of the scope would help prevent some misconceptions, yes... but there will always be people who don't read carefully and who misunderstand. Wnt seems to be off base a lot but also seems to be authentically both confused and frustrated. Most importantly Wnt does not seem to understand that even RS calls for secondary studies to be used first and foremost and primary sources only for exceptional cases and then with care, and temporarily, as you did in thrombosis-research section with the 2 recent RCTs. (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:SCIRS also exists. In my mind, if it's not medical research, then I rely on WP:SECONDARY and good sense. Would you agree with that? Biosthmors (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)\

I didn't know that WP:SCIRS existed! However, it is not a guideline or policy so I cannot see how it would be useful for resolving disputes. I do agree with relying on WP:SECONDARY and good sense as much as one can. More clear MEDRS guidelines would help people use good sense. This is what was frustrating on the Talk page for MEDRS - Colin especially seems to believe that the text expressing MEDRS is perfectly fine and all that is needed is common sense. I do not share that perspective -- defining one thing with three different, short terms, is suboptimal for a guideline....Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

We use (at least) three different names for the stuff that's covered. There are two different responses to this approach: one is for people to assume that all three are covered (anything that is A and/or B and/or C, the maximum set), and the other is to assume that only those things that are simultaneously all three are covered (anything that is A and B and C, but not, e.g., something that is A and B but not C, which is the minimum set). The maximum set is what's intended.

The reason that we use different names (to the extent that it's intentional, rather than the accretion of small changes over a couple of years) is because having the most number of terms increases the odds that whatever the dispute, we can say, "See? It does too cover <insert whatever the POV pusher is claiming it doesn't>."

The terms aren't defined anywhere, and I'm not sure that it would be helpful to do so. Firm definitions aren't really necessary for people who are searching for the best possible source (you personally don't really need MEDRS to exist at all, do you?) but any perceived omission becomes grounds for a wikilawyer to say "See? It doesn't say my exact thing, so it doesn't apply." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. This is somewhat of a style thing with regard to how policy/guidelines are best constructed and used. It is definitely true that guidelines are not really necessary for people who are well intentioned and understand the 5 pillars, and that lawyerly types will find holes in anything. My sense is that it will probably be impossible to get consensus to change this so I am dropping my effort. Thanks for replying! Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

As you said above, policy writing is hard. But perhaps now that we've got a clearer idea of your concern, then eventually someone will discover a way to improve the page. Thanks for explaining it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

BPA article

You have started deleting the primary studies from the article saying it is per policy. Please point that policy out to me. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright review.

I'm asking the two single largest contributors to Bacillus thuringiensis to look into resolving the copyright issue. Is this something you can do to help?

Hello, Jytdog. You have new messages at Talk:Bacillus_thuringiensis#Copyright_review..
Message added SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Why WP:UNDUE?

Hi, thanks for working towards a compromise on Agribusiness. In your edits, you kept pointing towards WP:UNDUE. How was crediting Ng undue weight? He is an authority within one of the primary communities writing the literature on agribusiness, providing a pretty standard definition. Also, I hope everything else in the community and real life is going well for you! Sadads (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reaching out. You write "He is an authority within one of the primary communities writing the literature on agribusiness".... all I am saying is that you need a source for that -- this seems to be knowledge based on your experience, and the whole WP:OR policy is about writing encyclopedia articles based on reliable secondary sources, not OR. He is literally the only human being named in that article -- is he really the most important man who ever existed in agribusiness? That is the "weight" thing. I hope that makes sense.Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Just a friendly greeting, and an additional assurance that I have no problem whatsover with your work on Monsanto, at least as deeply as I looked. I came to the article because someone came to the Teahouse complaining that they were having trouble getting their YouTube video of their protest song into the article. That brought me to take a look. I have no topic expertise in GMOs, agribusiness or the like, and no axe to grind. I do have a strong desire to see POV pushing removed from any given article in favor of well-referenced NPOV content. Like you, I admire the five pillars, which don't get mentioned often enough these days.

So, I've got to say that I am impressed by your user page, and grateful that editors like you are working in this topic area. Thank you. Feel free to say "hello" from time to time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanatory note, and for your kind words. I'm sorry I made the folk artist unhappy -- the video was pretty funny but it had nothing to do with Monsanto except mentioning its name. Thanks again!Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Boldness

I want to thank you for your boldness at Aspartame controversy/Aspartame. You did a nice job of making a proposal, getting input, then acting based upon the discussion. If there had been a few more participants, it would have made a nice textbook case.Novangelis (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words! And for your input on the proposal! Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hydroxycut edit

I'm bewildered by this edit[1], in which you remove text with an edit summary saying that "I've" removed text. Actually you have. Can you please explain? Coretheapple (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for the attention you gave to Dietary Supplement Health And Education Act of 1994. It is encouraging to know that someone would find it so quickly. I looked over your user page. I also am interested in biotech information ownership and I also participate a lot at WP:WikiProject Medicine. Stop by my page anytime if you want to collaborate on something. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

BP & Wikipedia

Funny to find us disagreeing on that. My feeling was that it's too much Wikipedia "inside baseball" and just not important to readers. However, I suppose that in the absence of a tag informing readers of such situations (which i have drafted in my sandbox), such sections may serve the purpose. They make me uneasy, though. Coretheapple (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your comment on the editing culture at the BP article being broken, but I disagree with your view exonerating BP itself from that taking place. Whether the employee involved has been in "the right" by Wiki standards is immaterial. The problem is that having a company employee participating on the talk page is, in itself, a highly disruptive factor and I believe is directly responsible for the mess in that article now. I'm not exonerating the other editors but condemning the dynamic. Coretheapple (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have seen Arturo make only a few remarks, and all of them were extremely polite. And I mean extremely. You can tell he is a PR pro. It is the other editors who are making the culture ugly and doing all the wierd stuff. I don't see how you are connecting the presence of arturo with the behavior of those editors. They don't refer to him at all. What behaviors - what actual writing - can you point to, that demonstrate that connection? I fear you are dealing with "spiritual" realities, rather than concrete behaviors on the Talk page and in the editing. My conclusions are based on "who wrote what", not who anybody is. So do tell! Can you show me what you mean? Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that we're talking about the same thing. First, I hate the references to "Arturo this" and "Arturo that" because he's a BP employee working on the article on BP time, executing BP's media strategy, and he does not function independently of BP. Over time, he has utilized the talk page for the purpose of proposing vast amounts of text that have had the effect of toning down and whitewashing the article, consuming the time of editors, turning editing of BP into a kind of PR activity. That's very much his job, and he is polite, and he hasn't broken any rules. But I think that his presence as a catalyst for whitewashing has helped result in the broken editorial culture on that page that you correctly point out. What makes it invidious is that it is indeed in concordance with the rules. This isn't some vandal but a respected Wikipedia editor who is popular and polite, who makes requests that seem reasonable. It's only when you back up and look at what's happened do you realize that the BP article has become a mess. Yes, the reason it has become a mess is because of a coterie of editors who execute the proposals that BP has initiated. But it is BP that is the catalyst for that process. If BP did not have an official presence on that page I don't think it would have happened. Coretheapple (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, kind of... but I hold people responsible for what they themselves say and do. I don't buy the "catalyst" argument.Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I've reviewed other pages where PR reps, employees and consultants have concentrated, and that's been the invariable case. That's a discussion for another time and place. Right now, as they say on Capitol Hill, the time of the gentleman (me) has expired. Coretheapple (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for your quick reply. Sorry. I just felt a sharp edge and wanted to quickly dull it. As you say, I misunderstood but that is a common problem in these discussions. We often miss each other. We know what we mean but it comes across different. I monitor Peace in RL so I see the signs of discord, which none of us want. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry that I distressed you. I realize I have been condescending to Core and have apologized on Core's page. Believe it or not, I am trying to help Core. I am not doing that anymore.Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that...the help User:Coretheapple#strategy... confusion...loud and clear. You are a welcome addition to the article. I also only just recently joined the fray myself. As you know with these "difficult" articles, manners go along way in keeping things cool. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. We all need slack sometimes! :) Jytdog (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey there. Just back for a moment to clear this up.Re [2], no need for that kind of thing. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill. Feel free to interact. Advice always welcome. Cheers and I'll be back in a few days. You've done a fine job with the new section but that POV tag must go if it hasn't already. Coretheapple (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC) (Oh, I just reread it and noticed you said "that way." OK... just didn't want to inhibit you. people walk on eggshells too much. And tell Gandydancer to keep with it.) Coretheapple (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Gandy stepped away for some time off.
• Core is buzy keeping the tax man happy.
• Petrachan47 is not to be found. (I hope she returns)
• I am reluctant to put my "whole" head into the noose.
• In spite of all that, things actually look good. Thanks. ````Buster Seven Talk

Thanks! I am glad like what is going. Hard to say how well things are going since they are all away, though. I am kind of worried that they will be mad that I shortened the section on DWH... Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I was going to look in on the article today but instead I got sidetracked by another discussion. I should be back later in the week, and hopefully the other editors you mention will as well. In principle I'm not hot about shortening the article and feel it should go in the other direction, but i haven't seen what's happened there. Coretheapple (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

EotW

		The Friendship Barnstar
		Nice to meet you. The future of Editor of the Week depends on nominations. The focus is on "invisible" hard-working editors. You seem to be a Wiki wanderer. I would imagine that you run across potential candidates here and there. Please keep EotW in mind. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, I certainly will! Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Relax. I'm not worried about YOU sanitizing it. It's the guys and gals in the white biohazard suits w/ the BP sunburst that I'm worried about ```Buster Seven Talk 03:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Amazon reviews

I mean that can be sourced with proper attribution and proper wording. Example: very high number of people who has posted feedbacks on amazon has indicated that d-mannose resulted in miracleous cures for bladder infection. In such a case we don't say that it actually provides cure, but we rather state the facts on the ground. Ryanspir (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for asking! Amazon reviews violate about every part of WP:RS that I can think of. The biggest problem is that they are 'self-published' please please read WP:USERGENERATED and the longer WP:SPS. You have no way of knowing if a user who posts on Amazon ever used the product, much less whether what the user said is true. You also have no way of knowing whether the "very high number" of d-mannose reviews were posted by one person or by "very many" people. Amazon reviews are not reliable. Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

right

You are right in virtually everything what you have said. However, thats why i also call them unreliable sources. Yet, i believe they can be used nonetheless with right attribution as shown in the example. Also small note, amazon reviews have status lines. Such as verified purchase and premium reviewer. Usually those reviews are even more trustworthy. Another thing to consider, is that while sourcing to one review has its considerations, referring to summarization is better. Lets assume that in two hundred reviews we have 5 reviews that are not real. However if majority of reviews are correlated on some points, these 5 reviews won't have any effect. Just try to read the reviews on d-mannose by now foods and you will see what i mean. Ryanspir (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

As I asked you on the MEDRS talk page.... Can you please answer? You say: 1) Amazon reviews are not reliable sources. and 2) We should be able to use them as sources. Since you know that wikipedia policy states that content can only be sourced from reliable sources, how can you say both things? One of them must go -- either you argue that Amazon reviews are reliable sources, or you say that we cannot use them. With regard to what you say above....if any Amazon review is not reliable, that means that 100 Amazon reviews are still unreliable, and a summary of 100 Amazon reviews is still unreliable. You cannot get out of the unreliable bucket. And in any case a summary of 100 Amazon Reviews by an editor violates WP:SYN. These policies -- WP:RS and WP:SYN, are two of the most important, foundational policies that wikipedia has. You cannot mess with them! Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

summarization

I think summarization and syn isn't the same thing, is it? Also please see my post on editor assistance. They have said that i can use amazon as i have written it in my example. Other than that, i agree with you. Ryanspir (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Summarizing a bunch of different amazon reviews is definitely SYN. If people told you otherwise they were very very wrong. And no way is anyone going to let that fly under MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

BP editors @ "what's going on here"

If, in fact, "sides" exist at the BP article, I would put you and I on the same one. I have not been editing there much longer than you. I consider your involvement a breathe of fresh air into a stale room. What strikes me as lacking is a sense of unified "attack". I don't like to use such a battlefield word but, at an article like BP, it does sometimes seem like its always an agitated warzone. I enjoy editing, I enjoy working within a group of editors to acheive a common goal, I enjoy watching and reading the subtle nuances and arguments that my "cohorts" make. But I'll be damned if I'm gonna stick around and be attacked and ignored by an editor that is on my side. When you get down to the core of the apple, I'm a sensitive OLD human that doesnt take well to criticism. Thanks for letting me vent at your talk. I needed a friendly ear to whisper into. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC) BTW...Ive been to Core's talk and have read "strategy...confusion" and I completely agree. There is no Espres de corps. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Did I ignore or attack you?? I am sorry, what did I do? Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing. Corethapple is the one that attacked and ignored. I guess I assummed everyone stays up too late at night and gets up too early in the morning. Ive been a bit of a Whirling Dervish this morning. Sorry if I made you dizzy in the after-tow. :~).```Buster Seven Talk 14:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

We'll have no problems, Buster, if you acknowledge your relative youth! Take care, Coretheapple (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I always have been taught to respect the elderly....er...I mean my elders. I respectfully bow to your advanced geezerness. As with most young whipper-snappers I am more than willing to move forward. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, here we all are! Chance for me to say something. Core, for what it is worth, one of my core principles at wikipedia is that there is no "we" - everybody spends time on what they care about, and goes about that exactly in the way he or she wants to. The other, is that wikipedia thrives when there is space for people to add content according to policy and his or her vision, and for other people to work with it. Things get nasty when anybody "owns" a page or specific content too much. I tried to throw you some advice about how to better achieve what I saw as your goals - which are yours, not mine. As I wrote on your page, I did that b/c it was hard to watch you do things, that I saw as sabotaging yourself - namely unnecessarily pissing off your "opponents". And now your ally (buster) as well. What I didn't write there, but will now say, is that in my eyes, the inflammatory language you used and still use, not only sabotage your goals, but they contribute to the bad culture on the page - to the sense of warfare - and make it harder for everybody to wade through the passion to get to the issues. That's my perspective. (and you are completely free to call me an asshole and ignore me) And when you write (happily) noninflamed things like "We need to focus on what is important, and apportion our limited time and energies accordingly." you push my buttons... (!) Again there is no "we" in the sense you use it here. You work on what you care about and think is important; I will work on what I care about and what I think is important. To me, it is not reasonable to criticize volunteer editors for not working on what you want them to work on. And that was my biggest gripe with Delicious Carbuncle. I don't think you understood that. Delicious Carbuncle (who I think is now gone, based on the last edit summary he/she made, which was just lovely) contributed nothing to the article, and arrogantly asked us to do work for him/her, and didn't even take the time to read the actual conversation we were supposedly having, much less the history of Talk. His/her last comment on Talk said: "In any other article I would simply add a sentence about the Lisburne Field spill to the Prudhoe Bay section, but I think I know what the result here would be", but at 20:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC) (my 2nd response to him/her) I wrote: "btw I just added content on this spill here: Prudhoe_Bay_oil_spill#Consequences_and_subsequent_spills " Which nobody has reverted nor edited further. So.. not the most helpful editor to have on the page, especially with all the trouble we are already having. And if you have not checked out DC's contributions, you should do, and judge for yourself whether DC would be a helpful addition to the page. My intention was not to drive DC away - I would never do that. But I did call him/her out on the judgementalness and bossiness, and i guess this was not tolerable for him/him - couldn't let go of that and roll up his/her sleeves and work. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Look, everybody on the Internet, and that includes Wikipedia, thinks they're right and that the other guy is wrong. I think that it's a mistake to obsess too much about behavior in an anonymous environment and to get too upset when people don't recognize what a valued contributor that you are. I also think that arrogance, tone and so forth just have to be accepted, which is not to say that you shouldn't get upset or rake someone over the coals if necessary. As for "sides," I'm having difficulty figuring out who is on who's side, and I'm not sure it's a useful exercise. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

1) I don't need anybody to recognize my contribs - I am happy with them. Although I am an executive now I retain a lot of respect for people who actually work (I was a laborer for about twenty years) - and I don't like it when anybody judges from on high and doesn't get his hands dirty. I chose to spend my time calling him out on that because I don't like it in general and it would be a horrible thing to have going on in this article, on top of everything else. I kept inviting him to actually do some work. He chose not to. There you go. 2) Of course everybody thinks they are right. The question is how willing you are to acknowledge that somebody else might also be right, and how you handle differences. Pretty often, you are handling differences by flaming... I don't see that as helpful for meeting your goals (which is none of my business) nor helping the page work better (which is a little bit of my business). That's all I mean. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

People do judge Wikipedia from "on high," and will continue to do so, especially in controversial articles like BP. I wouldn't even be editing that article myself if it wasn't for that ZNet article. Much as you may disdain Delicious Carbunkle, and I'm not happy with his skipping in and skipping out myself, any input from any editor with an independent POV is to be welcomed, even as a kibitzer. The article needs it. I don't give a damn whether they want to get their hands dirty or not. I think that you have lighten up generally, put the whip down, and not lord it over other editors in a condescending manner. Coretheapple (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I will keep that in mind going forward. Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No more "gotcha" comments please

Please try to keep your summary comments more civil. This one: Criminal prosecutions: again if you care so much BE ACCURATE. It was $4B to settle all criminal charges and an additional $.5M to settle one civil charge. for pete's sake.) does nothing to promote a good working environment at the BP article. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

i am sorry you are right about that comment. Jytdog (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

you made the change i responded too strongly, the same morning I wrote this comment - was in a dark place: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BP&curid=947750&diff=550793338&oldid=550778294 Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't do this

Please don't "hide" comments you disagree with, as you did here.[3] You're not the talk page police. As I requested before, lording over other editors is not something you should do. Coretheapple (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)