User talk:Jytdog: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 07:35, 8 December 2014

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

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)[reply]

Cabbage and hypothyroidism

Jytdog -- as an editor frequently supporting WP:MEDRS as you did today on the Antioxidant page, could you provide input on the Cabbage Talk page debate and yesterday's article revisions for hypothyroidism under WP:PRIMARY and WP:MEDRS please? I feel it's an example qualifying case where one editor, AliMD7176, appears to be a physician with a clinical opinion about preliminary research applying as MEDRS. This would also be educational for me, as well as other users. Appreciate your point of view, with thanks.--Zefr (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog -- I can live with your edit and your advice. Thank you. Just to be clear here.....primary sources used were simply to establish a relationship, one that has been known for approximately a 100 or so years. That there are thiocyanates in cabbage and that thiocyanates inhibit a specific pummp are not controversial positions, for which I was providing original research. These compounds are commonly used in the lab to do just that.

I think that my frustration stemmed from the fact that my edit was wholly undone. If, an edit such as the one you have done to that section had occurred, I would not have felt the need to reply as I did. And although of most of what I wrote there was also true, as it served a didactic purpose, I do apologize for a claim of "vested interests" on part of the other editor. AliMD7176 (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks that is very gracious of you. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that this went through; your history doesnt show that you deleted it, so I'm posting it again to bring a detail into focus, and ask a few relevant questions:

One last thing, please realize that the abstract you cited references thiocyanate and its ability to inhibit transport of iodine into breast milk. Although that is great for knowledges sake, the implication therein is that only lactating females need consider this. Now although all glands are similar to some extent, the following abstract better mentions thiocyanates ability to suppress iodine transport into the thyroid gland specifically:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=The+Effect+of+Perchlorate%2C+Thiocyanate%2C+and+Nitrate+on+Thyroid+Function+in+Workers+Exposed+to+Perchlorate+Long-Term

I hope you can appreciate my zeal for specificity here. Just because thiocyanate may inhibit iodine transport into breast milk, does not mean it does so at the thyroid. Shouldn't a source detailing specifically its inhibition at the thyroid be used? And one is a human study while the other is bovine. And in this case, what makes one source better than the other, when they both come from PubMed? Im not asking you to change them, and neither will I edit it as the message is conveyed, but wouldn't that make more sense? AliMD7176 (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi. quick note. if you look up the pubmed ID (pr "PMID", which is at the bottom of every Pubmed abstract, all you have to write is "PMID 15572417" and the Wikipedia software automatically creates a hyperlink to the pubmed abstract. Nice, right? OK, with regard to sourcing, one of the many "policies and guidelines" I linked to, was WP:MEDRS. Please read that - it is our guideline for sourcing health related content. Bottom line, we classify sources using historiographical terminology, as primary, secondary, and tertiary. Primary sources present actual experimental data (bench, clinical, or epidemiological); secondary sources are reviews, treatment guidelines, etc; tertiary sources are textbooks. What we always aim for, are recent, independent, secondary sources. What you cite above, is a 10 year old primary source. Not good. There a zillion reasons why we stay far, far away from primary sources. Some of them are described in a draft essay (draft, b/c it needs a lot of trimming) I wrote called Why MEDRS?. But believe me, you are almost never going to get content sourced to a 10 year primary source to "stick". Hope that makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Impatient me......the second sentence of your source clearly states that "sodium iodide symporter (NIS), also responsible for iodine transport in the thyroid" ! Yes, ok, thank you, I had assumed everything on pubmed would be classified as a primary source. Another question. How about the prelude to an abstract of a study that is a primary source.....Even though the study itself is a primary source, the first few sentences of an abstract are never experimental data yet are established background information. The "setup" if you will. Is such a distinction made? Or, if the study itself is classified as a primary source, then all information contained therein, in toto, is also classified as primary? Just looking for a clear delineation here between primary and secondary. Obviously, if the same information is contained within both secondary and primary sources (as in the case here, the secondary source takes precedence), but lets say there is no secondary or tertiary source, yet, the opening paragraph of the abstract (not the data, not the results of the data, etc) states the fact you wish to write on. In that case what happens? Thank you for taking the time out to answer.AliMD7176 (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you are asking real questions and I appreciate that very much. Yes the intro section and conclusion sections of many primary sources often a bit of review, and if one's back is to the wall it is OK to cite those sections (it is usually good to note that you are relying on the intro in your edit note!) but those are still pretty suboptimal, as generally the authors are trying to craft a story for whatever hypothesis they are working with... so not the best. Straight-up reviews are by far preferable (although they are sometimes a bit tendendentious too). You have referred a few times to abstracts. Generally you ~should~ read the whole article. If you don't have access to medical journals, WP has "deals" with some of the big publishers that give individual editors who sign up for it, access their journals. There is information on this here. Also, if you are not aware of it, please consider joining WikiProject Medicine - you can formally sign up at the link there, or just start watching the talk page. :) Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so very much. AliMD7176 (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notifications

Thanks for the tip for protecting Quercetin. Was going to take care of that, but got diverted by work. Doc James stepped in to create a block on the student editors.--Zefr (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Intellectual property

Intellectual property is a topic distinct from intellectual property rights. I believe there is enough material on this subject to make a nice article. Let me work on it for a couple days, and see how you like it.

No need for alarm, warnings, etc.

Wikipedia is unbreakable. Everything can be undone. If you don't like the intellectual property article after a couple days of me working on it, I'll be happy to request deletion of it myself. The Transhumanist 03:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am just blown away. Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicology and Myat T. Aung

Hello, I appreciate your editing and paraphrasing.. however, I would appreciate more if you give the reason especially when you delete entirely. I would like to know what perspective you want to discuss in toxicology page since I have an interest to edit more to the page. Thank you.Myat T. Aung (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please open a discussion on the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

You do good work. I know it can be wearing at times, and might seem thankless, but it truly is appreciated. bobrayner (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, that is very kind. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi: [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks :) Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good work indeed. There's a lot of unneeded crap to deal from some editors in topics you deal with especially, but articles typically end up better when you're involved. Hopefully users learn a bit in the process too, especially when you try to steer them in right direction on how to deal with scientific content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

more kindness! thank you. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct to remove

Hey I saw you had to remove a number of Talk page comments per WP:TPG, I thought that was the correct thing to do, if more like that keeps happening let me know and I'll try to help deal with it. Zad68 04:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the check-in on that. felt a little dicey so good to get admin reassurance. :) Jytdog (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While here is your edit warring warning because this looks like the direction we are going in with edits like this [2] Your position is not supported by policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, let's discuss on talk - and i would say it was your edit that was not supported by any sourcing so violated WP:VERIFY and also didn't follow WP:LEAD, as described here. but whatever, i guess i got you mad at me today. Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MDMA article

I read some of your "bio" and it seems that you like protecting articles from "cognitive bias", which I can sure appreciate.

I know I am only some random IP-address editor in your eyes, but I get irritated by the complete lack of organization and obvious cognitive bias of this article. As a neurosocientist, it is painful to see such a messy, horrendously organized article.

Please explain, how does this statement "MDMA is neurotoxic and can cause symptoms of dependency due to its effects on the mesocorticolimbic projection" (A) belong in the opening paragraph, which should be reserved for general characteristics, with complete disregard for any coherent order, whereby the third paragraph clearly summarizes more relevant medical properties, and (B) belong in a proposed protected article without any source whatsoever, in the state that it is currently in?

It is clear that this article is target for vandalism from both sides, with some wanting to emphasize the potential benefits of this substance, and some others wanting to emphasize the potential harms. But, as of now, there is a lot wrong with this article in particular -- in its current form it is a complete embarrassment for Wikipedia, and I feel appalled that someone respectable as you would want to protect it in the state that it is in.

Thanks for your thoughts and contributions.