User talk:Jytdog

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)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding No progress made in the discussion.. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Genetically modified food#WHO source".The discussion is about the topic WHO citation. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Abuse of COIN

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case# and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 02:01, 12 July 2015‎ (UTC)

I will see you at

…the appropriately chosen Adcom, for your failure to engage in this matter as advised by the Admin originally involved, and failing to AGF and engage other editors just as informed and due respect and involvement as you are. Nothing at Wikipedia is irreversible. This was a bad, summarily enacted decision without enough time and editors speaking to it, and with important continuing negative ramifications. Enjoy your day. Le PRof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see my response to you at the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing found, and no link provided. Matter is going forward, unless you revert, and leave the Foundation article in place until a discussion can be completed. Your heavy-handedness and disrespect for the novice editor involved will be reviewed. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I responded on both relevant Talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You clearly posted here before the other pages.

The all caps formatting was used to get attention. You may interpret it other than it was intended; it was necessary because I had asked the same thing repeatedly of you before, and yet you steamrolled ahead, regardless. I needed to be sure you were seeing my requests, and ignoring them and acting regardless. You have confirmed seeing them, and so the larger text served its purpose. I will accept any punishment necessary for not knowing there was a rule against such formatting.

I have not misrepresented Sandstein. He made clear that the merger did not need proceed, and that discussion could continue.

You have flexed your editorial muscle, further disrespecting two editors, myself and the novice. If you want this matter to remain civil, and as an editorial matter, with a true aim toward broad consensus, then put the PBC Foundation article back up. It is only you, and at best, a cabal of two, that is insisting it needs come down immediately. (And there are two asking it not.) Put the PBC Fndn article back up, or we deal with this on the basis of your treatment of Jrfw51 and the principles relevant to Wikipedia that are involved, via discussion before administrators. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I will no longer post at this page, or at my Talk page regarding this matter. There are too many venues going. If you have anything further to say, say it at the PBC article talk page. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Talk:PBC Foundation. Your opinion and involvement will clearly be key to any restoration of the Foundation as a separate entry. Now what would you propose to do about all the other Health charities Category:Health charities which have separate entries to their disease pages and rely heavily on their own websites? Jrfw51 (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I despair at the WP:POINTiness of your remarks about articles about other charities. Wikipedia is wildly imperfect - we all do the best we can, where we can. If you are going to run around WP grinding axes - that every other disease advocacy group articles should be treated just like "yours" was, out of anger or some sense of injustice - you are not going to last long here. On the other hand, if you now have a better grasp of WP:ORG and want to improve the encyclopedia so that more articles on disease advocacy groups meet our policies and guidelines (and there is a remarkable amount of COI/PROMO/ADVOCACY editing when it comes to nonprofits generally), then please, go to work on them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again for your advice. Jrfw51 (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog:. Jrfw51 has been very cordial with you in his/her wind-down of this matter, so let me be blunt and say this one thing, one time. I think you acted monstrously, especially early, in your responses to him/her, as a newer editor, holding religiously to a perfectionist bent—hear this, it is coming from the guy who 99.5% is in your camp, the guy who tags everything and "refimprove section"—a bent that said "this stub does not hold to my citations standards, it has to go." Never mind that you were wrong to apply MEDREF standards to an article about a charitable org, initially, which coloured your interactions with the novice editor, early on. Nvm that you misconstrued that s/he was an advocacy editor, associated with the article, leading to a similar initial negative bias from you. Nvm that she (and later I) tried working with you to show you sufficient org articles were available to stop the merger—asking only that the article be allowed to progress for a few days, to see if, with the citations in, a fair comparison could be done to other char org articles. No, the massive two editor majority in the deletion-becomes-merger discussion had to be adhered to. You had fixed in mind it had to go, so it had to. And so instead of making the charitable, decent decision to let the merger matter ride, you acted on the amazing majority-of-two mandate over our objections—because technically you could. Forget right or wrong, "allowed" was all you needed. Well congrats, you were successful in getting the stub deleted, while at the same time contributing to one of Wikipedia's more shameful personal moments, in my direct experience. The stub is gone, but it is, even so, less diminished from this than you are. It has been hard since seeing you do the merge, unnecessarily, over our request to hold, to see that choice as anything other than a deep character flaw, as true colors showing through. And regardless of it being an instant or a pattern, it will be very hard to muster respect for your ongoing efforts when this "win at all costs" attitude has been shown to be even a possible part of your makeup. I say this, frankly, but also with some insight. Because I wrestle with the same, and the only thing sadder than seeing it outside of me, is seeing it inside. I was once compared to—and now compare your choices in that debate—as acting like a terrier going after prey. The advice I heard that changed me—yes, be so, but do it for the little guy, not for your own ego. Admit you are wrong, unsink the teeth, and let the rat go every once and a while. (If you have ever watched what such a terrier becomes in the midst of his work, perhaps you understand what it is a fearsome comparison.) More importantly, fight for the little guy. Bottom line, the battle was won, but I propose an important war was lost, in your not giving an inch, not extending grace to the the little guy here, which was the novice editor on the other side of the debate. Well, that is my opinion, take it or leave it. If you ever want a tough, pro-sourcing collaborator in a science article, you can count on me. But know, for sure, in the end, it is the people, and the grace that you muster from within you, that counts. Last word from me on this. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Five points in response:

First, thanks for talking. I do hear what you are saying, but I don't agree. Le Prof you really came at this in a strange way.

Second, I didn't apply MEDRS to that article.

Third, your actions were out of line with WP:CONSENSUS, the bedrock policy of this place, in two ways. The first is that they disrespected the decision of the AFD, the second and more important way is that they were out of line with the process to object to deletions - that process was established by the consensus of the community. It is a good thing for you, that you didn't follow through with your proposed ANI, as it would have led to a boomerang.

Fourth, with regard to Jrfw51's advocacy in Wikipedia on behalf of the patient advocacy groups -- I am sorry that you cannot see that. Advocacy (of which COI is a subset) is in my view the biggest problem Wikipedia has. People often come here because they are passionate about something; that passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute, but it also often (not always) leads to advocacy editing that warps content in all kinds of ways (most often, UNDUE, which makes sense when you think about it - The Very Important Issue ("TVII") is very important so deserves a lot of space and emphasis, in their view) and can lead editors to treat other editors like shit, because whatever TVII is, it is often more important to the advocacy editor, than all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or any other person here. Thank goodness Jrfw51 kept his/her head during the deletion dispute and has always remained civil. But the deleted article was clearly the product of advocacy (it didn't meet NOTABILITY - as an article it was "UNDUE"); some of their editing on that topic since then, has also been advocacy-driven. Many of their edits are great.

Fifth, throughout those events, I was very concerned for Jrfw51 and I wrote to him and with him in mind, and followed up with him to explain. Working with new editors and respecting them as people, doesn't mean blessing every thing they do; it does mean talking with them and explaining why things are happening in light of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines - it does not mean behaving in ways that blow off consensus and shouting.

Summarizing all this - your framing this as me going for a "win" or as about "protecting the little guy" is the wrong framework. The PBCF article was created by someone passionate about that subject; an AfD determined that PBCF doesn't meet the criteria of the NOTABILITY policy at this time and the article should be merged/redirected; I implemented that. He was unhappy with the AfD outcome; you were very unhappy with it and some drama ensued; I dealt with you and him as compassionately as I could. This was all very normal stuff in this huge and strange world of Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Message received, same in response vis-a-vis willingness to Talk (prior judgments already softening), but on the core issues we must agree to disagree. While I concede that the WP process aspects have always been formally on your side, I stand by the fact that your strong a priori feelings regarding COI and referencing (both of which I share) set you off in the direction of an outcome (win) that never had more than a two editor excess in your corner, which reduced to one as soon as I arrived (granted, after the merger discussion had ended). So, however much you are correct vis-a-vis the propriety of the process was followed, all this is legalism—I stand by the conclusion that important aspects of the spirit of wikipedia rules (and the more general spirit of principles that should govern peaceable human interactions) were not followed. I would add that I believe that this is one reason—alongside not wanting the hassle of entering into a conflict—that Doc, et al., said they could see both sides, and stayed out. Bottom line, myriads of more poorly sourced articles on less notable subjects persist, and those wanting encyclopedic information (here, on a clearly important UK medical charity), and only focused disease information in disease articles have had a troubling precedent set. Mostly, though, the point of writing was to say, no question, you had Jrfw51 on the letter of the law. But that what was lost was far more than what was won. And no, sorry, a thousand times no—there is no aspect of life, anywhere, anytime, where "'protecting the little guy' is the wrong framework." The adage "whatsoever we do, to the least…" is a benchmark, not just a quaint aphorism or dated sentiment—rather it is a hard-edged standard applicable to all aspects of life: personal, professional, and in public service (last applying here). The late Prof Lewis of Cambridge, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and one-time Chair of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge, suggested in a children's book that we would ultimately see revisited, "tear for tear, throb for throb, blood for blood" all that we had done to these least (The Horse and His Boy, p. 228, HarperCollins, 2005 [1954]). Odd those this might seem and sound, I am more of that mind than the opposite, which stovepipes what might be considered suitable behaviour in each context, following rule rather than spirit. Cheers, Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

As I am the subject of this I must comment although I have tried to move on from personal attacks and to comment on the edits rather than a perception of personality. I am not an advocate for the PBC Foundation although of course I felt ownership of an article I had created. My first involvement with the Primary biliary cirrhosis Name change initiative was here [1] to correct over-zealous "advocacy" editing by perhaps a true IP advocate. When I created the PBC Foundation page, I made the mistake in following the format of other patient support groups with lots from their website for references. Now in my off-WP work I was somewhat aware of the forth-coming changes, and I suppose this then became a COI although this has never been a very important issue to me. It is difficult to reconcile an expertise with a COI for neutral editing -- as you recognise. So I will wait until good sources meeting appropriate standards are available. I was inexperienced in WP disputes (not having come across this in my 400 edits -- maybe a week's work for you) but I have learnt a lot about good and bad manners in WP. It is too easy to snap and not assume good faith. I suspect we are all too old to accept we can lose arguments or change our ways but we need to see why other editors see their edits as important. Now I have wasted enough time on this and will move on. Let's hope we can work together in future to add what we see as important to the encyclopedia. Jrfw51 (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You are not the subject. Le Prof was telling me that i did badly, and I am telling him that he is wrong, and he actually did badly. You are just part of the substrate of that discussion. But thanks for clarifying your position: I meant it when I praised you for keeping your head through all that! Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Note

So jytog just want to say no hard feelings i thought you were getting overly personal but if you can get two editors to agree with you then maybe it's me the page is yours. if you know you're trade you can find info to update the irom sharmila chanu page i don't think i can contribute to it in a way that anyone here finds helpful and I have things to do. Take care now 78.17.55.197 (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

it is not personal - you are welcome to contribute to the Talk page, please just don't write stuff there that is your opinion about the situation or bringing sources that we cannot use. The Talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. That is its only purpose. Jytdog (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Then can I say that you are mistaken about verifiability. E-pao you claim does not have it. But my understanding is according to Wiki it's not about truth. E-pao is unreliable often untruthful but it fulfills wiki's verifiiability conditions. Also when you complained to have the page locked the response was that it did contribute to discussion. I don't like discussing things here because you can be oversensitive and keep threatening to block me. But if you are serious. What criteria make you think that E-pao lacks verifiability. I agree it's not truthful that's because of intimidation and bribery. The other thing which was odd even though the chappie disagrees with your opinion on my contribution because he accepts I did use references they are still deleted and he said he would back you even though he didn't think you were right. This is a gentlemen's club and you have blackballing privileges because you put the time in and i am never going to put the time in. But in terms of Sharmila nothing is coming out now looks like the place is getting set for PR. But it's my opinion origional reasearch and I am just saying is all. So ignore that last. But about verifiability what are your criteria you don't state them. You just point to a wiki page which has loads of different criteria but you don't cite which ones you feel epao lacks in this case that is. If you are still reading just because a blog page exists for a few years does that give it whatever wiki claims is brownie points. Anyone can set up a blog. How do you choose external links. I would have put Sharmila's actual physical address up. Giving a blog address merely aids the cover up. But what are the criteria for picking blog links. Bearing in mind very few people read these pages. But it's important to you and she aint dead yet. If she dies no I don't care what you write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.55.197 (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC) I am assuming you aren't incompetent this is the first report I have seen for one of the two trials in Imphal at the Uripok Cheirap Court day four of prosecution evidence http://imphaltimes.com/news/item/3443-sharmila-produced-before-court again the report is not accurate but it is verifiably published. And you claimed you wanted verifiable references. If this irritates you here please politely say so stop threatening to block me. I know it irritates you on the irom sharmila talk page but you have never made it clear why other than quoting a page of wiki jargon and not specficying what your objection is. If you want to play nice then explain what the problem is rather than just going on about how busy you are. I was quite excited it's the first paper to publish her name in Imphal for months. I know you're not interested in that bit. So ignore that bit.78.17.55.197 (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Listen. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is very clear that you are passionate about Sharmilla. That is great but it just has no place here - this is not a place for advocacy for anything per WP:NOTADVOCACY which you haven't read or taken on board. Please actually read that. Thanks.

The link you cite has no encyclopedic information in it. It is just a brief news piece. WP is not a newspaper - it is not a blog. We don't "report" the latest and blow-by-blow events of things. Please stop abusing Wikipedia. I am sorry for what you and she are going through. Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You get I am passionate about Sharmila and you are passoinate about this wiki page. She isn't here and there's no point in getting between a man and the object of his passion. You never answered teh question on verifiability by the way. You just brought in a different objection. My assumption is if resolve one problem you just make up another. Passion is like that enjoy78.17.55.197 (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

What you have been doing is wrong in WIkipedia in many ways. That source could have been OK (sorry for not saying that), but what it says is nothing to add to the encyclopedia (which is what I did say) Jytdog (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Lying and cheating

I think this thread says it all. This arrogant cheater was caught lying a long time ago. This guy has no place on Wikipedia. The Dissident Aggressor 13:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

as I wrote there i would not oppose a move to indef him and think that move would have a good chance of succeeding. Thanks for your efforts to preserve the integrity of WP. I do think that you have been too harsh - I only say that for two reasons. first, issues of paid editing are controversial. There is a significant minority in WP that thinks it is OK. Treating suspected paid editors harshly undermines the overall effort to create consensus around the issue and could one day getting you in trouble. (especially with your username!) The second reason, is that I am sensitive to hounding, because I am and have been hounded by people who are convinced I am a shill and it is... ugly. They really believe that about me; like you really believed that Wintertanager was a paid editor. You happened to be right.... but in my view that doesn't make treating people badly OK. I don't know if that makes sense to you. Anyway, thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You have a very thoughtful and nuanced approach to editing here. You'd make a hell of an admin. The Dissident Aggressor 15:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

that is nice of you to say, thanks! and really, thanks for staying after WT - follow up is so important on this COI stuff. so thanks Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Your revert

[2] Explanation please? P.S. Please see WP:SORTKEY bullet point #7. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

that appeared to be a test edit. My apologies, will unrevert. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thank you very much for implementing the archiving bot to my talkpage! Sakimonk talk 22:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

you're welcome! Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

ENSSER

I've been thinking about the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility, a group which I believe you are familiar with (they defended Seralini after his FCT paper was retracted). Do you think this organization is notable enough for its own article? Everymorning (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

yes i am familiar with them. it's a FRINGE advocacy group; it will be hard to make a decent article.Jytdog (talk)

Honor Society

Why do you keep removing critical information from the NSLS wiki page? There is not nearly enough info on this company right now and you should be adding stuff to the page right? What do you think the page needs then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Die death1 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article's talk page. That is what it is for. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I saw your mea culpa at ANEW. Just be careful here. Brianhe (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. Jytdog (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment Removal

Sorry about that-- yes, it was an accident! Will that stay on the page forever, or is there a time when it gets removed? I have edited things and made the page a bit more concise since the comment, though I'm afraid to submit it for review again while that comment is still there, no? Thanks again for your guidance! WriterFly (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

once the article is accepted, all that cruft about the AfC process goes away. But as long as it is a draft, it stays. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Archana Gupta Updating the name of the profile. wrong spelled

why the heck now the name is changed again?? already provided a valid verified reference for it Archana Gupta there was no spelling mistake in the name. And why you still considering all the references which doesn't even exist now. the refrence provided is the recent from a verified source from 2015. please visit all the refrences in the page most of them don't exist and are very old. Hence asking you to consider this update to the name rather than considering it as wrong spelled Rajeevsao (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

use the article talk page - if you read it you will see there is already a discussion there waiting for your response. and i fixed all the references the last time you came around. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hello. I hope you are doing fine. I have one question: How can I get access to HighBeam Research? There are a lot of coverage I could use from there, but it is restricted for me since I need login information. Thanks you and cheers! --BiH (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi - see Wikipedia:HighBeam. Please also see the note I left on your Talk page about your COI disclosure, and please reply there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

3d printing

Hi Jytdog, I like the no nonsense clean up but I wonder if the 16um minimum thickness could or should stay here by being re-worded without the promotional element given that it is cited and also relevant in that particular context. Regards. CV9933 (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that - feel free. Thanks for talking! Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagreement

Jytdog, i would like to get along and work with you in a creative tension, yet by my reckoning, i see you engaged in tendentious and disruptive editing practices. The most recent example is your revert of my addition of Monsanto legal cases in the article about Monsanto legal cases, in which you allege that i am edit warring. I don't see how that can even be an accusation there. I find you to have shown a pattern of accusations against me, as well as often unwillingness to engage in very real and genuine dialogue when it really comes down to it in disputes, and it's become a serious hindrance to my ability to do good work on Wikipedia. You've also accused me of bad character and motivations in editing, often, as in this most recent example. I am your colleague and co-editor on Wikipedia, and i wish we could work out differences in dialogue, and to compromise when we must. You think a case should not be mentioned on a page about Monsanto legal cases, and i think it should be mentioned. We have different reckonings. Let's try to express our reasons in calm and direct dialogue. Let's not try to block things using excuses or lawyering bureacratic types of moves. Let's be direct and confront our differences of opinion as adults. We can agree to disagree, but i would like to be feel that i am participating in dialogue with you as an equal, unlike how i often to feel, which is that you are swinging weight as if you're my superior here, as if you're the expert and your word goes, and as if your interpretation of guidelines and policies is the final word. A bit too heavy-handed. It's a reckoning, but i now have months of experience interacting with you, and i find it quite disruptive. I realize that i see the world through my perspective, but even after long consideration of my interactions with you, i still find your behavior too often intractable and not collaborative. I write this message in hopes of still finding a better way to work with you, though at some point i'll need to request dispute resolution or some other remedy to the atmosphere of difficulty of collaboration that i feel as a result of your behaviors. I'd like to get on with doing good work here, but if every edit i make on any page you watch is going to be reverted and then subject of a long and winding discussion that never really focuses or discerns and acknowledges issues clearly, and in good faith, then it's not going to work out. SageRad (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I work within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and I respect them. I will see you on the article Talk page. I advised you here what you should do to make your edits stick. Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I really must disagree with your assertion that you work within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, based on your behavior at Monsanto legal cases. I see an editor engaged in tendentious editing, editing in a specific ideological direction, and using policies when convenient for your cause, and ignoring and misrepresenting policies when that is convenient for your cause. The dialogue there makes this clear. That, and willful lacunae of responses that lead to incomplete dialogue and explcit questions going unanswered, such as "Do you acknowledge that you misrepresented Wikipedia policy as prohibiting inclusion of filed lawsuits until they're completed, and/or now do you acknowledge that this notion is not correct, and that a lawsuit in progress *can* be notable for inclusion in an article?"

I value my ability to edit on Wikipedia, and i have diverse interests. However, editing articles in which you are involved has been a painstakingly difficult process, largely due to the behaviors that i'm calling out here, and others. I would like to edit based on policies and guidelines, and to work in a creative tension with you. I know you have a different perspective on many things than i do, and ideally our perspectives would work together in a creative tension, balancing out articles, and providing reference to different points of view within articles, as is the intent of NPOV guidelines. However, behaviors that appear to be filibustering, wikilawyering, and other delay and obstruction tactics are seriously disrupting my ability to edit, and this seems to be true for other editors as well. This is a community and we must expect behavior with integrity, or the whole project comes apart. SageRad (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your question in quotes misrepresents what I have said, and is a "does your mom know you beat your wife" question. I generally don't answer those. I do understand that you are frustrated that you cannot use Wikipedia for advocacy. I am sorry you are frustrated. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not an excuse. Have integrity. State your case clearly and answer questions honestly. I'm sorry you find it acceptable to be disruptive and make this a difficult place for many other editors, and i'm sorry you wish to characterize me as the problem, and take no responsibility for your own actions. SageRad (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I have stated my questions clearly about the content you want to add. I am sorry you don't understand them; please ask me to clarify whatever part you don't understand. Also, what you are bringing up here are matters related to a content dispute - please discuss content on article Talk pages. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I've answered your questions as honestly and completely as i can. I wrote the note here about an ongoing issue i have been having with your behavior that is disrupting my ability to edit, and taking up a lot of my time. SageRad (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

When I asked why this matters, you replied that the lawsuits are discussed in good sources. You are answering a question about WP:RS but I am asking a question about WP:NPOV. As I wrote to you before, your edits are not sticking because they are bad edits. You have added unsourced content in violation of WP:NOR, badly sourced per WP:RS, and UNDUE content per WP:NPOV. I am unhappy that the articles you have chosen to work on, are ones that I watch, but the poor quality of your editing is not my fault. I have spent a ton of time trying to teach you how to edit better. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

edits

hi Jytdog, I do appreciate your concern, but what you wrote on my talk page was not really necessary, as Jeffro77 and I DID actually come to collaboration, and I came to agree with his last edits on this. The "edit warring" DID stop. I accepted his final edits and modifications on this matter. As I generally do overall with Jeffro77's edits. It's ok. Also, your removing the wording in the lede was unwarranted as it was the "stable version". That was the valid sourced and "stable" lede wording for a long time. No warrant to remove. So I'm restoring. (Not even sure why you removed it, since it's clearly referenced and correctly worded.) But you should not be saying the things you said on my page. I did not break "3RR" and frankly, you're a bit out of line and over-reacting. Jeffor77 and I did come to working and final collaboration on this, if you carefully analyze all of the edit history and comments etc. Regards. `Gabby Merger (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Work it out on the article talk page. please. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that the wording that you removed from the lede was the valid sourced and "stable" lede wording for a long time. No warrant to remove. Even Jeffro77 accepted and had no problem with the lede and wording there. (Not even sure why you removed it, since it's clearly referenced and correctly worded.) Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

don't do that. discuss on the article talk page. You are about an inch from getting blocked for edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

What's this "inch away from getting blocked" that you keep saying, as if I violated 3RR or have been horribly "edit-warring"?? I don't appreciate that. Your removing the wording from the lede was unwarranted, and the wording in the lede was NOT even a matter of dispute by Jeffro77 or anyone. That WAS the "stable" lede for a long time. Stop threatening me. YOU are violating Wikipedia policy in assuming BAD faith. And your lack of civility. WP:Civil you're not keeping and I'm not gonna put up with it. I did not violate any Wikipedia policy. But you are in what you're doing and saying now. This "one inch from getting blocked" nonsense is out of line and an over-reaction and uncalled for. Jeffro and I DID come to final agreement and collaboration over this. But YOU decided to butt in and chime this for some reason. Not cool and not necessary. You're assuming bad faith, and how is that respectful? Gabby Merger (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring harms Wikipedia. Stop it. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. For now, and for a while, seeing how things go on here, and what is said and discussed, etc, I won't be dealing with that transliteration matter on this article. Just maybe with general edits, that were never in disagreement, and other things, etc. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair. Because you participated in the deletion discussion or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GregJackP Boomer! 00:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

Do you think this journal is a reliable source, given that it has been criticized for having "apparent bias in favor of industries that are subject to governmental health and environmental regulations"? [3] Everymorning (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That letter is dated 2002 - 13 years ago. I really struggle with the kinds of arguments that are made in that letter about "ties" to industry. Surely you have heard all the fuss about Michael Taylor's roles at the FDA and his "ties" to Monsanto? Well here is what the Center for Science in the Public Interest (who organized and sent that 2002 letter) had to say about Taylor in this open letter that they published in 2012.

In any case, we can't address reliability of a source without the content it is meant to support, and the specific article with its authors. But no, I wouldn't chuck an article just because it is published in that journal on account of that 13-year old letter. Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The specific reason I am asking you is because I noticed a paper in this journal cited more than a dozen times on the aspartame article, where I believe you and I interacted once years ago. The reason I know about this journal is that in editing lots of tobacco-related pages here, I found that it has published a number of industry-funded papers arguing that secondhand smoke isn't harmful. Also, the journal's editor is tobacco industry consultant Gio Batta Gori. There is also some more criticism of the journal here.Everymorning (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The strongest argument to not use this journal is that per this it is not indexed by pubmed or medline. Its impact factor and rank are not great either. And the advocacy for big tobacco by the editor is also not a good thing - that is more than just a "tie". We always want to use the highest quality sources we can. I'll have a look at sourcing in the aspartame article. But really, I decry the sloppy "ties" thing, especially with regard to toxicology, on a bunch of levels. Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The journal is MEDLINE indexed, btw. Sounds like it probably is not reliable for surprising text (i.e. passive smoking is not harmful), though probably is OK for uncontroversial material. Yobol (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, thanks Yobol! Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Longevity and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Redact

Redact usually means removal, blacking out, or editing to hide content, not addition of content. wiktionary As used here Interesting response. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

see WP:REDACT. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

POV edits and claims

Notice that your removal of content from various GMO related pages appears questionable at best. See for instance here, or here. Wrong or meaningless edit summaries add what appears to be POV pushing. The proper way is to seek consensus first on talk pages before removing content, especially if it has been part of the article for months. Then you made a claim on my talk page recently that i do pro gmo edits, act aggressively or that my edits are advocacy, or that i broke 3RR. I still waiting for you to provide a specific dif for these claims. Notice that these claims amount to intimidation by you, and ignoring my request to provide difs is adding to an overall disruptive pattern.prokaryotes (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You can cherry-pick all day. You have no grasp of the range of my edits, and if you really looked at them you would see I reject changes from POV pushers on all sides on the GMO issues. And I told you - look at every single edit you made in the past day or two. Every one emphasizes negatives of GM or promotes the goodness of organic. Every. Single. One. And I struck the 3RR thing so WP:DROPTHESTICK on that. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Which one in particular, promotes the goodness of organic?? Maybe you confusing me with someone else, i have no idea what you talking about. And you still just make vague claims, and are reluctant to provide any actual difs. prokaryotes (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't even know what you do? this was your one edit to organic stuff. "advocacy group" has been in the lead since 2006. since 2006 Every edit has emphasized the risks of GMO stuff or done things like that. Every one. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? How is this promoting the goodness of organic or emphasized the risks of GMO stuff? There seems to be a disconnect between your claims and the actual content in question. I ask you now again to stop making up untrue claims about my edits.prokaryotes (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

what is the point of changing "advocacy group" to "nonprofit organization"? (that is a real question) Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Because non profit is what the source states, and hence what i wrote in my edit summary.prokaryotes (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Grandia & James (Jim) Hoggan

A user kgrandia is an employee of James Hoggan, a PR exec. He has edited his own page (i just reverted) and created a page for his boss. How do we proceed? Capitalismojo (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice catch! First thing is to approach them on their talk page and inform them about our COI guideline. Often when people learn about it they are happy to comply and there is no need for further drama. If they are unresponsive or won't agree, you can post at COIN. I can do it for you, if you like. If you want an example, you can see here - that editor has done half of what I asked (disclosed on their user page) but hasn't actually replied yet and I will be following up with them soon). There you go! Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

connected contributor tags

Hi Jytdog,

I see the purpose of connected contributor tags in instances when the COI contributor has created an article or made a significant change to it. For the IPs tagged on Monsanto legal cases, they were immediately reverted, and had no impact on the article. We both know Monsanto and related articles attract a range of advocacy editors including COI editors, and I see no reason to focus on IPs that made 1-2 low-quality edits 4+ months ago. The removal of law firm sites as a reference for legal cases is a well-established precedent. Could you explain how you think these tags benefit the article?Dialectric (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is an example. There is an article that the community tried twice to delete and each time failed. After I went through and identified the extent of COI editing with these tags, that article was deleted in a heartbeat. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_National_Society_of_Leadership_and_Success_(3rd_nomination). That is just one example, and one way the tags are useful. I don't know to what extent there will be future COi editing on that article (and I doubt we will ever seek to delete it), but the tags are useful for seeing what has gone on, on the COI front. I don't think the cc tags should ever be deleted from any article - they are included in the headers so that they endure and are not archived. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Motion: Longevity

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to longevity, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Longevity

Intralesional therapy with IL-2

Intratumoral therapy with IL-2

Please don't delete this section. Intralesional IL-2 is part of the new NCCN - Evidence-Based Cancer Guidelines for the treatment of melanoma. I added additional references including the guideline recommendations. THE National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) is the highest authority for cancer treatment recommendations. This section is not "SPAM" the reference that you have deleted from more than one Wikipage is the HIGHEST downloaded article of the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, which is the most prestigious of all of the clinical dermatology journals.

http://www.jaad.org clinic on "MOST READ" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.79.255.150 (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Jytdog. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

NNDB

Regarding Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 21#Template:NNDB, I don't know if you have seen that this was discussed previously. See 1) Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 13#Template:Nndb name, 2) Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 13#Template:Nndb name, and 2) Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 29#Template:Nndb name. Cheers! - Location (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Oy, I didn't. Jytdog (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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 DrChrissy (talk • contribs) 20:04, 1 September 2015‎ (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey Jytdog, I don't think I ever properly thanked you for your edit to AIG, so please accept this belated gratitude. After some time away from Wikipedia, I actually just started working with Memorial Sloan Kettering to improve their page, and saw you'd made some positive changes, especially regarding the whole COI debacle. My first priority with them is to clean that up (as I think only two of the COI editors actually still work at MSK), but following that, I think further improvements can be made in terms of content and structure. If you've got the time, would you be interested in collaborating to polish up the article?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Question about abandoned drug category

I noticed you re-added the "abandoned drug" category to the page on the ill-fated weight loss drug 2,4-DNP - From my current understanding 2,4-DNP was sold as a RX only medication (just like another ill-fated medication of yesteryear, LSD) and was than withdrawn due to side effects - Thus it wasn't really "abandoned" so so speak, it was sold and then pulled due to the high fevers and overdosing and whatnot. A similar sort of thing happened with LSD, People were prescribed it and it got out of control. If this is correct - Why is DNP the only ill-fated drug of yesteryear listed in this category? - Mfernflower

hmm OK the "withdrawn drugs" category would be better. I just made that change. OK? Jytdog (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Bullying

I wish to record that I regard your behaviour towards me as bullying. You flagrantly disregard Wikipedia policies and procedures and abuse your position by making threats. You make no attempt to enter into discussion about concerns you may have about articles, but resort immediately to a combination of deletion and intimidation. Rathfelder (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If you keep making articles that get deleted for being promotional and that contain COPYVIO, you are going to get blocked. Me telling you that, is not bullying you - it is telling you how things work here. Feel free to ignore me; I am trying to help you. What you are "recording" here is WP:IDHT. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

I just realized I never posted a proper thank you for your help on the Cerner Wikipedia article. So, thank you! JNorman704 (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

you are welcome. did we finish/ Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

33R Edit warring

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.prokaryotes (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this template cites WP:BRD. You made the first change; when I reverted you should have gone to discussion. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Brian Boxer Wachler

With all due respect, he is certainly an academic as is evident from his long record of peer-reviewed papers. [4] Note that his middle initial is "S". Everymorning (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

academics have academic appointments. as far as i can see he has none. he is obviously a relentless self-promoter. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I think that this is about to go to ArbCom. In fact, I am thinking of making the request myself. I am very sure that they will accept it. Please let me suggest that you pull together as many diffs as you can of your own edits, in which you can reasonably be considered to be presenting GMOs in a non-positive light or presenting critics of GMOs in a non-negative light. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove my name and the accusation.

You have mentioned me in a section on AN/I. I am asking you to remove or strike it as it is casting WP:ASPERSIONS. I am not the subject of your dispute. While we may disagree on a lot of things, that disagreement is not up to what your comment suggests. In fact I support all PAG. That I see them violated where you dont, or that I believe a punishment should be less is not the same as being anti. AlbinoFerret 15:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

As we have discussed before, the pattern of your commenting at drama board actions is very clear. And indeed you have been true to form on this one here and here where you are not considering the merits at all, but throwing up smoke. If you choose to make an issue of this, the diffs I will bring will show beyond any doubt that the behavior I describe is accurate. It will be a big waste of the community's time. Review your own contribs if you don't believe me - the pattern is very, very clear. Nearly always opposed to WP:MED editors/editing, and throwing up distractions to protect editors who are doing bad stuff when it comes to FRINGEy topics or health content (the pattern of DrChrissy seeking to expand conflict with me is so, so clear) Literally, never once have I seen you even acknowledge the merits of a case related to FRINGEY/altmed/opposed-to-mainstream health editing. You have learned the gamesmanship of dramaboards here pretty well. Everybody is free to bring their POV to drama boards, but after a while it becomes clear where you are coming from, especially when someone is as consistent as you are. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Your choice, I asked nicely. Your diffs show me addressing PAG, though not in the way you would like. Thats a disagreement, not being anti anything. You have not proved anything, and WP:ASPERSIONS comes from an Arbcom decision. I would suggest following it and removing your comment or striking it. AlbinoFerret 16:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a day for gathering diffs, and it appears I am going to need them eventually anyway, since you continue to plow ahead with your unWikipedian partisan hackery at ANI (really I find your one-side gamesmanship really transparent and so, so ugly)

• Your topic ban started on March 16th.
• here are all your contribs at ANI since then; about 325 contribs

• 1 contribs on a child molestation accusation; unrelated
• 5 contribs on bitcoin, unrelated
• 2 contribs on 'CANVASS by User:Green_Cardamom" unrelated
• 4 contribs on the thing between me and DrChrissy and big surprise, against me (I was in the wrong there). Related but OK.
• 3 contribs on Tornheim stuff. related' sniping; befogging the issue by calling it a content dispute when it is about a pattern of advocacy (something I had expected you to be attuned to due to your favoring of the COI Duck/Advocacy duck essays); again calling advocacy issues just a "content dispute"
• 2 contribs on "Topic ban User:Chiayi77 for admitted WP:COI reported by NewsAndEventsGuy" -unrelated
• 1 contrib on "retired prof" about religion unrelated
• 1 contrib on user soapboxing (userpage use, politics) unrelated
• 1 contrib on block proposal for editor with CIR issues (mishae) unrelated
• 3 contribs on DrChrissyy's bogus (snow closed) ANI over scrambler. related opposing MED editors; adding to that; more attacking offtopic dramah
• 3 contribs on the ANI against me about the catholic guy at COIN brought by IP that was snow closed. unrelated (and as this is not MED, you did the sensible thing and supported me)
• 14 contribs on iban b/n Alansohn and Magnolia677 about NJ geography 'unrelated
• 1 contribs on freeatlastchitchat (religion, rape jihad) 'unrelated
• 7 contribs on doors22 related at first nicely nuanced</front> dif, but then here you fell off the ladder and denied that there was a serious SPA/advocacy issue with Doors. The evidence I presented was overwhelmingly clear that the guy was a SPA here to advocate for one thing and your claim that "I have also said before that in a battleground everyone is at fault." What the heck do you call it when someone comes to WP with a very strong agenda and stirs up all kinds of crap with editors trying to keep things NPOV? That is a real question. I don't understand how you can be so clueless about the trouble caused by editors who are NOTHERE - who are here to SOAPBOX - again especially in light of your support for the Advocacy Duck essay. I am unable to make sense of that stance outside you having a carrying a grudge against MED. This was where I really became aware of the issue, AlbinoFerret. Which I wrote there, and you responded to.
• 3 contribs about Hijirri. religion. unrelated'
• 13 contribs on FreeatlastChitchat/Pax redux. 'unrelated
• 11 contribs on croatia stuff unrelated
• 1 contrib on simon trewe is uncivil (music_ unrelated
• 1 contrib on "Closure needed at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Exceptions_to_Small_Caps" unrelated
• 11 more on catlflap (scattered, not adjacent) unrelated
• 3 more on rape jihad 'unrelated
• 4 contribs atsme's ANI against me related to her essay, which was snow-closed. related as her essay stemmed from her unhappiness with MED. excuse her; again; sniping; and one cob move.
• 1 contrib on User:Phill24th page ownership, abuse of warning system unrelated
• 12 contribs on DrChrissy topic ban from acupuncture that resulted in topic ban. related distraction; opposing, distraction continued, dismiss as content dispute; after being called out by Zad for bias, you deny and again; more offtopic drama; and again claim you are objective. and again, that was closed with a topic ban. Later, support narrowing (3 diffs)
• 4 more on hijirri (curtisnab, TH1980) unrelated
• 1 on History of the WWE - Long-running edit war) unrelated
• 1 on Human_Chlorophyll and Talk:Jesus unrelated

That brings me from March 16 to May 19th, and is 114 contibs. (I am stopping now because I am sick of this)

Now breaking that down to related and unrelated:

• 1 contribs on a child molestation accusation; unrelated
• 5 contribs on bitcoin, unrelated
• 2 contribs on 'CANVASS by User:Green_Cardamom" unrelated
• 2 contribs on "Topic ban User:Chiayi77 for admitted WP:COI reported by NewsAndEventsGuy" -unrelated
• 1 contrib on "retired prof" about religion unrelated
• 1 contrib on user soapboxing (userpage use, politics) unrelated
• 1 contrib on block proposal for editor with CIR issues (mishae) unrelated
• 3 contribs on the ANI against me about the catholic guy at COIN brought by IP that was snow closed. unrelated (and as this is not MED, you did the sensible thing and supported me)
• 14 contribs on iban b/n Alansohn and Magnolia677 about NJ geography 'unrelated
• 1 contribs on freeatlastchitchat (religion, rape jihad) 'unrelated
• 3 contribs about Hijirri. religion. unrelated'
• 13 contribs on FreeatlastChitchat/Pax redux. 'unrelated
• 11 contribs on croatia stuff unrelated
• 1 contrib on simon trewe is uncivil (music_ unrelated
• 1 contrib on "Closure needed at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Exceptions_to_Small_Caps" unrelated
• 11 more on catlflap (scattered, not adjacent) unrelated
• 3 more on rape jihad 'unrelated
• 1 contrib on User:Phill24th page ownership, abuse of warning system unrelated
• 4 more on hijirri (curtisnab, TH1980) unrelated
• 1 on History of the WWE - Long-running edit war) unrelated
• 1 on Human_Chlorophyll and Talk:Jesus unrelated

related

• 4 contribs on the thing between me and DrChrissy and big surprise, against me (I was in the wrong there). Related but OK.
• 3 contribs on Tornheim stuff. related' sniping; befogging the issue by calling it a content dispute when it is about a pattern of advocacy (something I had expected you to be attuned to due to your favoring of the COI Duck/Advocacy duck essays); again calling advocacy issues just a "content dispute"
• 3 contribs on DrChrissyy's bogus (snow closed) ANI over scrambler. related opposing MED editors; adding to that; more attacking offtopic drama
• 7 contribs on doors22 related at first nicely nuanced</front> dif, but then here you fell off the ladder and denied that there was a serious SPA/advocacy issue with Doors. The evidence I presented was overwhelmingly clear that the guy was a SPA here to advocate for one thing and your claim that "I have also said before that in a battleground everyone is at fault." What do you call it when someone comes to WP with a very strong agenda and stirs up all kinds of crap with editors trying to keep things NPOV? That is a real question. I don't understand how you can be so unable to see the trouble caused by editors who are NOTHERE - who are here to SOAPBOX - again especially in light of your support for the Advocacy Duck essay. I am unable to make sense of that stance outside you having a carrying a grudge against MED. This was where I really became aware of the issue, AlbinoFerret. Which I wrote there, and you responded to.
• 4 contribs on atsme's ANI against me related to complications with moving her essay to mainspace, which was snow-closed. related as her essay stemmed from her unhappiness with MED. excuse her; again; sniping; and one cob move.
• 12 contribs on DrChrissy topic ban from acupuncture that resulted in topic ban. related distraction; opposing, distraction continued, dismiss as content dispute; after being called out by Zad for bias, you deny and again; more offtopic drama; and again claim you are objective. and again, that was closed with a topic ban. Later, support narrowing (3 diffs)

OK, so there are 33 contibs there are unrelated stuff on 6 matters. Do you see how you consistently behave differently on things related to MED? Every time supporting FRINGEy actors - you don't get into all the sniping, distracting behavior in other threads, and really importantly, you consistently end up on the side opposed to mainstream editors. If you don't find this compelling I will go and finish, but the pattern stays true. Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

New York Times

I was looking at the New York Times homepage today and I saw this story. I was wondering what your opinion was on it. Everymorning (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)An interesting twist on the usual "big bad industry vs the people" trope, when it is actually two different industries playing the same game for opposite results....Yobol (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Nature reported on the story about Folta a while ago. I didn't know that Benbrook accepted money from organic food companies; that was news to me. All these guys should be much better about making disclosures.

I think the thing to keep in mind from all that is the following quote "“What industry does is when they find people saying things they like, they make it possible for your voice to be heard in more places and more loudly." It isn't reasonable to me, to call Benbrook an organics zombie or Folta a Monsanto zombie - both of those people came to their own conclusions based on who they are, their values, and the science they look at, and industry came to them, and gave them money and support to amplify their voices, and things get tangled from there. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Just as a heads up, I created Kevin Folta earlier today, in case you want to edit it given your interest in GM stuff. Everymorning (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw it already, but thanks for the heads up. So what do you think about the stuff reported in the NYT piece? Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I was surprised when I read the part that says "the biotech industry has published dozens of articles, under the names of prominent academics, that in some cases were drafted by industry consultants." That seems like something very suspicious, and although I don't know much about the subject, I suspect that this may be unacceptable medical ghostwriting. Everymorning (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, I agree that there is a consensus that GMOs are no more dangerous than non-GMO food, so I don't really have a problem with most of the biotech industry's activities described in the story. In contrast, if the tobacco industry was doing it (and they did for years), that would be another matter because the consensus is against the tobacco industry in much the same way it is in favor of the biotech industry. Everymorning (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)