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)

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 Spearmind (talk • contribs) 19:27, 9 March 2015‎

Talk:Naturopathy

Hi Jytdog
Please be advised that when I commented at Talk:Naturopathy#NPOV problem fixed, I have also added 3 indents to your comment to maintain the 'flow' of the discussion with Young Naturopath 01. (Diff here). I have also noted on the page where added. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 04:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Jytdog, Thanks for the welcome. I've been a wikipedia member for a while, but have so far made only minor edits, and often forget to log on. Thanks for the resources. It should help me with navigating my way around formatting. All I've done so far on the naturopathy page is flag the issues. As I'm in the middle of an assignment at the moment I won't have time to do more for a bit, but I hope to add some well referenced updates to the Australian Regulations section to start with, and we'll see how it goes from there. I see you may well have some education in the life sciences so hopefully we can at least speak the same language.Gudzwabofer (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

sorry for telling you what you already knew - thanks for being gracious about it! I do hope we can have good, productive, PAG based discussions.  :) Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Why did you close my disscusion? --Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

please read the talk page guidelines and follow them. article Talk pages are for discussing article content and sources. They are not a forum. WP:NOTFORUM, which is what I wrote on the hat and in my edit note, and again here, is part of TPG. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Great work on the reference review. I'll see if I can dig up a few new ones where needed sometime and I'll make a proposed reference reading list on Nat talk when the gov report comes out on 1 April. I feel more relaxed about this now I've decided to take a break from the editing.Gudzwabofer (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

response to Petrarchan at ANI

Response to this question.

Above (here) I mentioned you in the following context: "I've attracted some haters. For the most part these are folks really committed to an anti-GMO POV.".

Diffs supporting that you are a "hater" of me (which I note that you didn't question, so i guess we agree on that), just two difs: most recently (which is really mind-blowing to me in the depth of your conspiratorial thinking about me) and of course your "case study'

Diffs of your opposition to GMOs:

First. We have content throughout WP on the scientific consensus, that eating currently approved foods from GM plants is as safe as eating food from conventional sources (which does not say, and never has said, that "GMOs are completely safe and no one worth their salt has any doubt" (as you described it in your "case study" linked above.) You have been fighting against this statement for a long time now, and have characterized that statement as an "ad", and have stated that "You want truth about GMO's (or natural healing, big oil, etc.)? Wikipedia is NOT the place to find it". (in the more recent thing I linked to above

in this dif (middle edit) where you summoned groupuscule to a discussion at the March against Monsanto article, calling groupuscule "The editor who knows about this subject" (for readers, groupuscule created a long document deconstructing (and i mean that in the lit crit sense) the content and sources supporting the scientific consensus statement, which was considered and rejected in the RfC that upheld that content and sources on the scientific consensus.

probably the best single dif of your POV is this one, where you make your "GMOs are dangerous" POV clear.

this one too].

there you go Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yowza - There's some serious tinfoil going down in those diffs! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm hiding under my tinfoil blanket. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Seriously?

Seriously, Jytdog? You are messing up the naturopathy article still?!--Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Oh no, what did he do? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

ich weiss nicht, ueber was er spricht. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Jdilts

Jdilts, edits under his real name and is under a conflict of interest. It's perfectly acceptable to post his name and evidence of COI in these circumstances. Ridernyc (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Especially if the user has not said so him or herself. You can of course restore what you wrote, but I will bring you to ANI and in my view, you will likely be site-banned. Outing is serious business and the policy cannot just be blown off. It is perfectly possible to state a case at COIN without OUTING someone. You can say something like "The user Amoon has been editing the article about Company X in a promotional way. Amoon has not made any statement about their relationship with Company X." You ~might~ add something like "There is a person named Andrew Moon at Company X" - just that, saying no more than that, making no claims connecting Amoon to Andrew Moon. You ~might~ get away with doing that, but I would not even do that. Outing is serious. Really. People are site-banned for it. COI is serious too, and I work hard on it, staying very, very clear of OUTING. Dealing with COI in WP is controversial in many ways; one of the "hottest" areas of disagreements is that people who get interested in COI will start to completely blow off OUTING - you are doing exactly that. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

He edits under Jdilts. He has outed himself. This is perfectly acceptable under the harassment policy, which specially mentions COI and editing under real names.

"The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator – but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority. Issues involving private personal information (of anyone) could also be referred by email to a member of the functionaries team.

Ridernyc (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

There I have reposted it removing the identifying information. I still strongly disagree with you though. Ridernyc (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

"Jdilts" could be random. It could be operated by a person named Jane Diltmoreland. It could be operated by the person you think it is. It could be operated by someone else (even you), who is trying to embarrass the person you are claiming is operating it. We have no way of knowing. You are the one making the connection; no one else. I very much encourage you to search the archives at WT:Harassment, and if you don't find an answer there, ask the general question at WT:Harassment (you could use the "Amoon" example I used above) before taking the very risky step of making that claim yet again. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

test

I am not sure if this is how I communicate with you on your talk page. Are you getting this message? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifermaitland (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

yes! Jytdog (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Resolution of COI?

Hi Jytdog-I was wondering if we could get the resolution of the COI tag on Lorna Taylor's page? Thanks --Mustangsdtpa (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

COI Issue

Hello Jytdog, Yes I am a paid editor, may I know how to disclose the employer, client, and affiliation? Balaji E.M (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Balaji E.M, thanks for your note and for disclosing. it would be great if you reply at the WP:COIN posting - I will say more there. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog, Yes I work for The company that has deployed a new Remote surveillance system for all the PG&E Critical sites. The intention was to verify that some of the allocated budget to improve security and publicly communicated has been spent and deployed with GREAT results... We are working directly with PG&E Corporate security and have been part of conference discussions with Homeland Security and FBI representatives. This is all in reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalf_sniper_attack and the aftermath, solution? I tried different wording options, sorry that I am new to contributing to Wikipedia. We would just like to update the public with the new systems that have been deployed and have resulted in Security Improvements... Regards... — Preceding unsigned comment added by CMAyala (talk • contribs) 17:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

What hope is there? Jytdog

He discriminates. What hope is there for me to contribute! I'll create an account with even my own personal real life name. Will it help? It won't help.

They discriminate and that's it. I'm not even going to argue.

He didn't even READ what I wrote to him. He didn't even have the common decency to address my concerns. Do continue like this. If it makes you feel better, good. Run things like that. He didn't read anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.3.182.13 (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

i don't know what article you are working on. but please keep your focus on content and sources, and what policies and guidelines say. and when there are disputes about content, remain calm and use the procedures laid out in dispute resolution. Things never have to become emotional here. Take your time. Really listen to other people, too. Seek consensus. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your words Jytdog, but I've given up. An article rated C is enough for me. On a level 4 article. That's good enough for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.3.182.13 (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

like i said, i don't know what article you are working on, and i don't know what the dispute is. but getting all emotional doesn't help - it gets in the way. good luck to you, really. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It's about objectivity and the truth. Neutrality. Thank you for comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.3.182.13 (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a look at the South Beach Diet article.

I believe it accurately reflects a current NPOV perspective: i.e. that it has clinical acceptance by physicians because of its accessibility, and its worth to patients with the metabolic syndrome; but that nutritionists remain skeptical about the first phase's net benefits to the rest of the population. I've looked through many college-level nutrition texts, and the overwhelming majority do not classify it as a "fad diet" now, and I think anyone can see the distinct break between diets such as SB and Atkins, which provide quantifiable benefits, although perhaps not optimum ones, and the sort of loonacy(sic) that many fad diets promote. I'm sorry to see the other fellow is taking a break; while I think he was wrong here, a skeptical eye never hurts, especially when a commercial POV is being actively fostered. Anmccaff (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

i think i un-unwatchlisted it. i will re-watch list it. always happy to consider new content based on sources that comply with MEDRS -- if you have them, please bring them at the article. thanks. (btw, people take "fad diet" much more pejoratively than they should do - it just a term for most of all these diets that a) make proposals that go beyond the common sense things of limiting your caloric intake, eating a balanced diet, and getting enough exercise and b) have a whole money-making machine behind them, with branding etc to get there) Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think "fad" becomes a misnomer at a certain point; Atkins, for instance, has clear roots that go back to Banting, and has clear cosmetic worth, and some clinical...although how much remains an open question. South Beach really does seem mainstream in modern med sources, with three important caveats: the earlier versions empasized glycemic index rather than glycemic load; the diet was designed specifically for people who are borderline diabetics, generally, and what is a worthwhile trade-off for someone with metabolic syndrome might not be for someone who isn't affected with it; and over time, the importance of exercise has been emphasized more.

It also suffers, like any dieting text must, from the conflict between scientific observation and coaching. There's a fine line between cajolery and misrepresentation. Anmccaff (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That "shout" page

I pretty much knew as soon as I read the article and a few references that this'd be a long, possibly even resultless slog, it's not my fist rodeo, plus I'm tired, plus I've got an assignment due in 2 days I should be working on. I'm actually starting to wish that this guy hadn't mentioned the article to me the other day, after all, even if I manage to make the article truly reflective of the pros and cons of naturopathy in all its forms, there's nothing to stop the original smear campaigner from just reverting it all back. By the lingo I mean I don't know the acronyms, I know that the sentence contradicts one of the sources, but I don't know how to find out what that's called. Anyway, read the sentence and the two references if you like, and if you can't understand what I'm saying from that, I don't know what else I can do. I'm rekt. I'm going to go and dream that they renewed perception for another season.Gudzwabofer (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry. i know what it is like to come across an article that is a complete wreck and to fight uphill to fix it. i have done that. but you need to move slowly, seriously, carefully, and respectfully - keep it human the whole way. really listen, and really talk, and always try to communicate and be as ready to change as you hope others will be. you build a reputation as you go.... and what you have done so far is dig a hole. what i appreciate, is that you have kept it human. keep that up! good luck. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

A little better rested. I've posted again in Talk:Naturopathy if that isn't sufficient I'm not sure what else I can do.Gudzwabofer (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

hope you had a good sleep! i will check it. Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read the talk page and the recent edits and reverts. What's the highest power I can appeal to on systematic NPOV violations? My sources are being accused of not lining up with the tone of the page. Even a reference to australian qualifications and private health rebates was removed.Gudzwabofer (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I advised you to take it slow. The edit note where you were first reverted says "Let's take this a little slower. At least part of the added content has issues with undue weight. Let's discuss on talk. " And per WP:BRD, you absolutely should be willing to discuss your changes, calmly and based on PAG. I told you to take it slow... take your time. You cannot charge in to any article and demand everything be fixed right now just like you want it. That doesn't fly anywhere in WP, for any reason. Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I've just read your edits and the Talk page discussion. Please do read WP:NOTHERE. You are exhibiting many of the behaviors there. Please think about that. Please. Please remember that the absolute foundation of Wikipedia is WP:CONSENSUS - which means really dialoguing with other editors, on the basis of PAG. That takes time. It is literally impossible to turn any article around 180 degrees overnight. It takes time to gain consensus - this is the deeply human heart of WP. You really must acknowledge that and behave accordingly. You are interacting with other humans. If you continue as you are, you are going to either burn out quickly and leave angry, or you are going to get thrown out of here, and you will waste a bunch of other people's time in the process. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I was commenting on the editing, there's been some pretty poor justifications for rollbacks or refusing edits. One of the reasons I was initially given for rejection of a reference is that it was 10 years old. However, when I remove text from a section devoted to current regulations because it was 40 years old I was undoed. I already added stuff about the current regulatory environment in Australia and not all of it was from the government report which was contended, at any rate it seems both government reports are fine to be used as a basis for things not pertaining to medical evidence, so I assume I can have back the majority of what I wrote before? I'm afraid to ask for dread of what excuse will be cooked up next.Gudzwabofer (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Also you'll notice the sections I added were balanced, because I actually believe in the scientific method and an informed debate, one of the reasons I wouldn't try to support some common naturopathic practices scientifically, I'm there mostly for the herbs and nutrition.Gudzwabofer (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

you are not listening. like i said, it is hard to watch you self-destruct. you are not being patient at all - there is WP:NODEADLINE here. Take your time, and work it through. I think you have some reasonable points, but you are acting unreasonably and that is destroying your credibility. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be very useful if you would list what you consider to be Gudzwabofer's reasonable points so that we could comment on them - it would also be nice if you could get Gud to indent his posts properly. Just sayin. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I need to work on some less contentious pages for a bit and contend my self with the couple of minor changes I got through for now. The problem is that the page already was personal. When people cherry pick facts to push an agenda it's not science, it's not neutral, and it's not dispassionate. The reason that the skeptic project has it rated as a B is they think they've done a pretty good job of rubbishing a profession that is largely built on millennia of tradition that mainstream western medicine forgot about in the middle ages and is now trying to patent.Gudzwabofer (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

no it is not personal. to the extent you personalize this, you are dramatically fucking up and you will end up getting thrown out of here. slow down. deal with one thing at a time. if what you want is the selfish emotional satisfaction of expressing outrage, you are doing that very effectively. if what you want is to improve the article, you are fucking up, thoroughly. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Look I might be a little bit schizo, but I'm not an idiot. There is a double standard here. My criticisms of some sources still haven't been answered with full academic justification, yet I'm not allowed to remove them, but when I try to add a source of my own, it's quickly removed by someone who doesn't even bother to read the references. I'm not even allowed to remove redundancies when things are mentioned twice, even when one of those things is in the wrong section. I'm well aware that I'm the only natural medicine afficionado working on this page at the moment, and from the tone of the article you all see me as completely misinformed.Gudzwabofer (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

you are not giving anyone time to even fucking think. i am only just now reading the victoria source. SLOW THE FUCK DOWN. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

ok soz, that last part wasn't directed at you anywayGudzwabofer (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

you are not giving anyone time to think. i have told you to take it slow (look at how many times I wrote that. really -- go look!) and you are completely ignoring that. get off your fucking high horse and remember that you are dealing with other human beings. get down here on the ground and WALK. you have to gain WP:CONSENSUS and that takes time, effort, and patience. And real dialogue. Dialogue is not making demands and expecting compliance yesterday. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

there's also a new oz gov commissioned report coming out on the 1st of April (no joke). I mentioned it in the dearly departed updated reguation section. Yeah I'm kind of in the middle of assignment writing adrenaline. Like I said I'm gonna work on other pages for a bit, maybe some nice innocuous botany stubsGudzwabofer (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I just saw you posted a second source to RSN, in the same section as the first. You abusing RSN now. That board is for asking specific sections about the use of specific sources. One source and the content for which it is used, at a time. Again, you are making a hash of things. Please remove the discussion of the second source for now. One thing at a time! Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I am a single person. I am dealing with about five other issues in WP now, plus there is content I want to write that is still waiting for my time, and my wife wants to go get some food. that is true for everybody here. please stop just throwing shit at the wall everywhere you can. if you keep doing it, i am just going to walk away from this whole mess you are making. i mean that. i have limited bandwidth and i will not keep investing my time in a disaster. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Just go, there's nothing stopping you, wikipedia and the naturopathy page will still be a mess tomorrow, as they were yesterday. I'm logging off, the heartfelt speel on my page is the last for the night. I think I'll have to try and convince myself to leave the majority of this job up to a hippie with more patience for bs. No hard feelings.Gudzwabofer (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

you are still missing the point. throwing so many things up in the air at once, and demanding answers to all of them at the same time, will get you no where and will waste a bunch of everyone's time. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Jdog. Have you seen XKCD number 386? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

what is that? Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

http://xkcd.com/386/ You are welcome. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen xkcd before? Did you mouseover the image? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

i have seen a couple of things there - they have some really on-point ones. yes i did mouseover - sweet little easter egging. :) Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

National Report

I am trying to close out a {{request edit}} for National Report - I'm not quite sure why cited content has been removed, but I have removed the sentence about when the first article was posted. Can we come to an agreement. I'm more than a little confused by what seems to be an edit war.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I opened a discussion on the Talk page already. Jytdog (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You tagged me as edit waring, but you're the instigator. Fine. Can you just delete the history section if you won't even allow me to post properly cited material? Did you even look at my last change before you reverted it? It netted you essentially where you were at. Let's stop this craziness.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

you are not an article Talk page user i guess. anyway it looks fine now. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I haven't posted a thing to Talk:National Report :). I was just trying to work with one conversation.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Undoing my edit

Why did you undo my editing of line 74 under "Polygraph"? This is factual information relevant to the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quickfix1 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss at the article Talk page. please bring it up there. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Tone at Foie Gras RFC

I just wanted to say that I think you should watch your tone at the RFC on Foie Gras, a mistake was made in procedure, albeit minor, and you damn near bit Dr Chrissy's head off, inserting your points, in bold, into their post. Not on. SPACKlick (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I could have handled that better, yes. I did not insert my comment into their post, however. ? Jytdog (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Patrick Awuah

Hi Jytdog,

The article below was deleted a couple of weeks ago on the basis of copyvio. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Awuah,_Jr.&action=edit&redlink=1

The article is being rewritten to eliminate the copyvios as much as possible. Kindly compare the current rewritten state against the copyvio terms to see if there's been any improvement. The goal is to improve and maintain the article, and not to violate any rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CopyvioAndSoWhat/sandbox?venotify=created

Will it be possible to have an article with not one word or character match with a referenced article?

Hope to hearing from you soon.

thanks -- CopyvioAndSoWhat (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing conflict in Talk:Foie gras

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Possible ANI

I have decided I have had enough of edits that are uncivil, inflammatory, goading, taunting, inaccurate, disruptive, demeaning, prophanity, misleading and just plain wrong. Cease and disist or I will raise an ANI.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

there already is one. i really don't know what has you so riled. just keep things simple, focused on content. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Patents as primary sources

I collaborated with Wikiisawsome by posting to his talk page and he did not respond. And now I'm collaborating with you.

I do not understand why you are reverting my edit and locking the page. I am not citing a patent for any content or claim in the patent. I am adhering EXACTLY to the Wikipedia guidelines on patents found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PATENTS#Are_patents_reliable_sources.3F

The relevant part of that Wikipedia page states:

"Thus both issued patents and patent applications have extremely limited use as sources on Wikipedia:

• They are reliable for simple, descriptive statements about their existence (e.g., "A patent was issued on to Alice Expert on May 5, 2010...")."

I am making simple, descriptive statements about the existence of the CRISPR patents. I do not cite any content or claims from the patents. I only cite metadata included in the patent headings. That metadata includes the date the patent was filed, the names of the inventors, and the dates that prior provisional patent applications were filed. That information is germain to the CRISPR invention and the patents are legitimate primary sources for that information.

All I have done is rely upon the patents for four simple facts: the date of filing, the inventors, the assignees and the date of the earliest provisional patent application. Published patents and patent applications are, indisputably, the most primary source possible for that kind of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.14.17 (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss on the article Talk page. would you please put your response there? it is much better for everybody to have a centralized discussion. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

huh?

Never seen such action/judgement. If you disagree or want to comment, you can do so directly. -DePiep (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

completely out of line. do not restore it. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a note on this, but I already have an ANI case part way put together I was originally going to submit to AN3. If you see this before submitting anything, I'll likely have mine up at ANI in not too long (not a great way to spend one of my few days available for Wikipedia this week). Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)More simple: do not edit someone else's comments. If you disagree, then talk. (t-a-l-k). Don't template-address editors. Don't say "warning" as an opinion. And for you: do not edit my userspace again. -DePiep (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Joseph Rosetti

You need to read an article before you say he was never a CEO of anything. Fourth line says "He served as President and CEO of Saint Luke Institute". The category is correct. Postcard Cathy (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

i missed that, thanks. will self revert. Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice there is an ANI regarding your behaviour toward me

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Your behaviour towards me. The thread is Jytdog: Protracted uncivility and harrassment.The discussion is about the topic Protracted uncivility and harassment. Thank you.

• I've closed said discussion as both the community feedback and your response have been pretty straightforward (despite the intrinsic drama). Given the fact that you've acknowledged the issue here, apologized, and accepted a "warning" I won't patronize you by writing out a warning regarding civility. However I will remind you about our helpful catchphrase, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I know it can be very hard when you get frustrated, but the key point is that very few things on this site are worth allowing yourself to get to that level of frustration. As long as you remain focused on content, you won't go wrong, and if you're really having an issue with another editor, you need to trust the proper channels to help you resolve those situations. Regardless, I completely trust that you'll remain true to your sentiments at ANI and do not wish to open yourself up to any more scrutiny with future incidents that garner complaints. Happy editing and regards, Swarm ^X 02:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I let myself go there for a while, and that lack of restraint is all on me. I accept the warning. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It happens to the best of us. Swarm ^X 02:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC

Please stop edit warring on the RfC. In fact, I think in your own interests you should consider removing it from your watchlist, as you said you would a couple of days ago. You've posted to it around 70 times since 22 March. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I was going to but then drchrissy pinged me despite promising not to... and i had been considering anyway that I had let it all get under my skin too much. i am in a good place now and will continue editing that article in a civil manner. Thanks for fixing the big text insertion, but your move of the subsection broke a threaded discussion, so i moved it back. And I've posted a lot, in a lot of places, the past month. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Swearing

Is really fucking healthy. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks. and for the edit note with it. stupid me. Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

As in real life there's a time and a place. These also are powerful words that lose some of that power when overused. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

agreed, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hounding

SlimVirgin, per your message at WT:COI, I'll just put the same question here with some variation.

In my view, I am being hounded, and you are supporting it, and definitely are not trying to stop it. You have been the subject of hounding and Arbcom found you to be "an outspoken opponent of any sort of on- or off-wiki harassment or stalking of editors, and has commendably worked to call attention to serious problems in this area, but has sometimes been too ready to accuse editors of this type of misconduct unnecessarily." What happened to that person? You are doing the opposite of being "too ready to accuse" others of hounding. Why are you supporting the hounding of me, and opening the door wide for others to be hounded with your proposal to lower the bar to taking action on "apparent COI"? I appreciate you be willing to answer. And let me add here, that I am not comparing what I have gone through, to what you went through. I don't know the whole story, but it appears that you went through hell, and I am sorry that you did.

I acknowledge that what you wrote was " If you'd like to ask me something about your situation," and you may not consider my questions to be about my situation. I think they are, as you appear to be me to be part of the current round... and I really don't get that. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Jytdog, just a note to let you know that I'll respond later or tomorrow, but I have to go offline for a bit now. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, sorry, I started to write a response, but there are so many separate issues, I wasn't sure what to focus on. I think it's probably best if I just leave it. Just wanted to let you know in case you thought I had forgotten. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 04:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, well thanks for making the attempt. i am open to hearing from you on these things, here or via email, if and when you like. Jytdog (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The Raben Group

Appreciate your insight on the Raben Group. Have no relation at all to them. The page now is strictly marketing drivel and my edits were all legit. Appreciate any assistance you can offer as an employee of theirs made it a marketing tool for them. Richie1921 (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm watching the article and will be responding there. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

New paper on GMO scientific consensus

Hi, since you edit GMO-related articles so much I wanted to know what you thought of this article which states that "Claims of consensus on the safety of GMOs are not supported by an objective analysis of the refereed literature." Everymorning talk 01:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

oh, the PR campaign continues! with Vandana Shiva as a co-author, nonetheless, and authors from ENNSR, with Seralini as reference 1. Hm! Thanks for pointing that out - will read.Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks, i read it now. it says nothing new... it repeats what ENSSR said already in 2013 and this mysteriously unauthored document says - there is a PR campaign going on by this FRINGE group. It is pretty smart. The source you brought is a "discussion" paper - see here for what that means in the journal; it is an editorial. And per MEDRS that is not a reliable source. It will likely get added to the Controversies article next to the earlier ENSSER statement. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

i've created a discussion about this Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies#new_paper. Thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

single dealer

Hi again JYtdog. As per our discussion on March 19th, would you have time to look at the two pages Single dealer platforms and Paul Caplin? I note they still have warnings at the top of them, and this really detracts from some great content in there. Would you have time in the next day or so to review these in an effort to get these pages back to a non-warning status? Your efforts are very much appreciated. Kind regards, JenniferJennifermaitland (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks, will try. many balls in the air right now. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Jytdog, I appreciate it. I would just like those pages back to being sound pieces of info and once that is done I will propose some additions that I think will be helpful to single dealer platforms. A lot of students use the page so having it warning free would be a big help. Appreciate you're very busy though! Jennifermaitland (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Hi Jytdog - I wonder if I you'll have time to look at this before we head in to Easter weekend? I would really appreciate that. Thanks, Jennifermaitland (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog - if you don't have time to do a clean up of these pages, can you suggest or nominate another wikipedia user who can? I am happy to reciprocate by reviewing and cleaning up any other pages that might be on your list. Thanks, Jennifermaitland (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog - hope you are well. Are you monitoring your talk page? I am still waiting to hear about the pages Single Dealer Platform and Paul Caplin as per our discussion on March 19th. They still appear with warnings. Is there another editor who can do a clean up if you do not have time? kind regards, Jennifermaitland (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Jennifer, you didn't answer Jytdogs question on March 19th, and so he has acted as such. If you want this sorted out, you need to answer the question on your Talk page first. Having seen the totality of your edits to both pages, this should be easily sorted out, but only if you engage with Jytdog. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 14:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Roxy the dog. Jytodoc and I have actually talked extensively about it (if you take a look at my talk page) and we left it that he would try to take a look at it over the weekend after March 19th, but so far just hasn't been able to get around to it. If there are outstanding questions I am more than happy to answer them, but I just understand at this point what they might be. Kind regards, Jennifermaitland (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Then you should read your Talk page again. I read it twice. Thanks. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that Jennifer, I was wrong. I've just seen the long section on your Talk, below the initial section where Jdog and yourself had an exchange. I hadn't realised the conversation went on to another section which I didn't initially read. I think that the issue has become a little overdone as far as your edits are concerned, but JD has appeared to be totally snowed under with stuff recently, and this may have escaped him. Unless Jytdog objects, I may remove those tags myself later on. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks Roxy the dog. I know he's very snowed under. Basically my concern are the big tags at the top of the articles. If there is stuff in the articles that still needs to be removed I certainly don't mind, but I'd just like to see the articles get back to looking more valid and without those tags as they are a valuable resource with some of the only non-biased information out there (you'll see that any other article referencing single dealer platform is usually on a big bank's website, and all the other stuff about Paul Caplin is to sell music). Happy to help in any way I can with clean ups of other pages if anyone needs a hand with anything. Thanks, Jennifermaitland (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What are

Your thoughts on this? User:Geogene/Uw-badcoi It's a warning template to discourage COI accusation battlegrounding and lead editors to COIN. Geogene (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

nice idea! I think the name is not helpful - you have to look at it through the recipient's eyes and i think the goal is to warn and urge, not offend... some other comments on its talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Doubts

Sir, I have some doubts, would you like to clear it.Balaji E.M (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

What? Jytdog (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Even-though some wiki pages have very less references, it is approved. May I know why?Balaji E.M (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like you asking why some article are allowed to be created, and why some articles are deleted. I don't work in that space much, so I cannot tell you much. if you are talking about decisions that individuals make, i can say that i agree - the standards that are applied vary a lot. When the community decides, like at an AfD or an appeal, they ~tend~ to be more consistent in applying standards. Jytdog (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Review

They are using a review now [1] Not sure if the review supports the content in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I got the review and have been reading. they followed it pretty closely (too closely at points). some over-certainty in the paraphrasing, and too technical overall. and those Capitals! Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Request

Could you please use conventional punctuation in your discussions? It makes your material much easier to read, and makes your arguments look more professional and thoughtful. Thanks. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

is there someplace in particular you are struggling with? thx Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Respect my privacy

Dear Jytdog, i can tell you i am member to a no-profit organization committed in overcome disabilities. I'm not sharing further personal information with you concerning my health status, especially on a open system. Thank you for your efforts to keep Wikipedia a better place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T0mW00t (talk • contribs) 15:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! I am sorry you interpreted my note as asking for any personal information - I will keep that in mind going forward when I reach out to folks. I'll reply further on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

jytdog

Jytdog just pinging you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

you double-pinged me by writing here and using the echo! Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

remember the new Star Wars 7 trailer comes out in two weeks (a little change to agree with what you said below)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

i already did! but thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

ive got your back too--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog you talking to yourself again?? :) Zad68 18:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

funny zad!

(edit conflict) that is very nice of you Ozzie - You have a good heart. i need to count on you always giving your straight opinion. I screw up sometimes and am always glad to get feedback, either way. The key thing is that everybody comes to each issue fresh. We humans do form "packs" but the encyclopedia is a better place if we fight that instinct, and come to every issue with fresh eyes, and start out saying what we think regardless if others agree (but always listening and eventually trying to reach consensus). I'll know you have my back, when you disagree with me in good faith and trust that everything will still be OK. I hope that makes sense. Thanks again! I am glad to be working with you. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

got that --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

great. i really value you as a colleague here. but we never want people to feel ganged up on (or be ganged up on) and if gandydancer (who likes you a lot) read what you wrote you above (and she may do.. i don't know if she watches my page or not) it would make her feel bad, even though you were trying to be good to me. and nobody deserves to be made to feel bad. i know you wouldn't want to make anybody feel bad. that's why we need to be careful of the "pack" thing and just be honest with each other. thanks again, it does feel good to know that you share the position i am taking in that specific thread. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Still, must make a nice change to have somebody getting your back, rather than getting on your back ;-) Alexbrn (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I changed it (just in case)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

you just made me laugh out loud. thx :) Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Watchdog

I have moved the notes about the "contentious" Atrazine article to the Atrazine talk page. I look forward to your comments there as we work to get that publication added, I have a few more I'd like to add to the page so this will be a good test run. Thanks! Remember: filter your water! Especially if you are prego. Apparently we midwesetrners are swamped in this chemical waste runoff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genomizer (talk • contribs) 19:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Learning articles

I think these are now off of your radar, but FYI I heard from the professor who had students editing learning styles and learning theory (education). He was happy to find out about WikiEdu and I've forwarded your summary of the issues (with a bit more generalized information). Don't know if that means anything will change in the near future, but at least next semester they will likely work with us. Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks for sticking with it! hooray!! Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Requesting help with a redirected page.

Hey there.

A wiki search for Trinity Baptist Church in Concord, NH is currently redirected to

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trinity_Baptist_Church_Sex_Scandal&redirect=no

This was due to a move or rename. I'm assuming the latter. Is it possible to edit the original page so that there is content germane to the current state of this organization? I am not looking to bury any of the current information contained in the above mentioned wiki. There is other information that can be posted and accessed by the community.

Thanks, Mcvizual (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

this is your only edit, ever. pretty savvy of you to find me!

The article used to be called Trinity Baptist Church, Concord, New Hampshire and then it was called Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire) and then someone objected that the article wasn't about the church at all, but about the sex scandal, so we changed the title to specifically reference the sex scandal. There doesn't seem to be enough material for an article about the church itself; we checked at the time. It would still be overwhelmed by the sex scandal content. It isn't clear exactly what the problem you see is... what is it that you want? Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm in the research field. Finding things is what I do! Honestly, I just looked at the edits and figured you'd be a good place to start since you had "Revert Rights".

I don't necessarily have a problem with the scandal page. The church needs to have a wiki that gives facts about their history, past leadership, ministries, etc. The scandal would obviously be it's own section and link to this main article.

Another issue is that Google uses Wiki titles as business names in search results... Why? I don't know. But when you do a Google search for Trinity Baptist Church in Concord, NH, the business name is shown as Trinity Baptist Church Sex Scandal. I'm currently trying to reach out to Google to rectify this.

Thanks for your ultra-quick response. I also love your use of the ellipsis.Mcvizual (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hm. Let me ask you - what is your relationship with Trinity? It is fine if you are connected with it, but per our conflict of interest rules (like pretty much everywhere else), things go better when people with conflicts are transparent about them So, do tell. (and to be frank, since you are putting in all this effort to rectify things with google and Wikipedia, it will be a bit hard to believe if you tell me that you have no connection at all).

But back to the point... above you write: "The church needs to have a wiki that gives facts about their history, past leadership, ministries, etc". That is not how Wikipedia works. We have policies that govern whether an article about X can exist in Wikipedia or not. That policy is here: WP:NOTABILITY. As I mentioned above, when we looked at this a month or so ago, it was clear to us that the church itself was unlikely to meet the standards described in that policy. This is what drove the name change. The article used to be named after the church, and had a window dressing of poor content about the church, draped around the sex scandal content... and this made no sense. (You can see what it looked like here.) (the title was different then, of course). Does the decision to change the name make sense to you, now that you see the policy, and what the content was, and the decision we made?

Sorry about the issues with Google - I hope they can fix that for you. 21:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Full Disclosure, I'm not a member of Trinity and I have no COI. I recently started attending and with my background as a User Experience Designer was approached with helping them update their website with more relevant content. In doing research and finding this wiki article, I thought I would try to help them get more of their core information into the Wiki article. I understand the need for notability but this need is not applied evenly across Wikipedia. See the Wiki on the Richmond Outreach Center There are multiple churches and organizations that have wiki pages that aren't notable except for some sort of controversy but they have content relating to history, etc. This is not to diminish the scandal at Trinity but rather, to prove a point and to request parity.

The original intent of Wikipedia may have been to be an open-source encyclopedia. However, one of the standard uses of Wikipedia is the general gathering of knowledge about an institution. I've seen it happen time and time again. If you ask a user to tell you something about a company, they will go to the wiki as often (or even more often) than visiting said company's actual website.

I expressed multiple times to church leadership the need to have the scandal as part of the wiki as it is notable and of public record. Not to mention, the way to build genuine trust is NOT to bury information. As I said before, my main goal is to get more of their information into the article. It is not to make a dark stain disappear.

Thanks again.Mcvizual (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the disclosure, that makes sense. (i really do appreciate it. this place is a community at its base and it is good when folks are straight with one another). so what you (and I guess Trinity) want, is that the article would go back to how it was here, with its old name. Is that right? Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

If that could happen, that would be great. There is other content that could be added to the wiki I would just need to research it a bit more to be able to cite sources. But at least changing the title and adding the history would square Google away. I don't know if you've ever had to deal with them on an internal basis but that cog turns real, real slow.

Thanks so much for your consideration around this topic.Mcvizual (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify what you wanted. I am not sure that folks will want to do it, but it has to start with a clear description of what you want. OK, my next question to you, is - what sources do you have, about Trinity, that would be used to flesh out the rest of the article? What we want are independent (not Trinity's website for example), reliable sources about Trinity (again, please see WP:RS). What do you have? You can put links here, or citations to books. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said before, that would have to be researched so that ambiguity can be avoided and proper citations given however, upon second thought, I don't really have a dog in that hunt. My services have been requested in a different area. I will be sure to pass off all requirements so that the additions can be made. That being said, additions might include their weekly radio broadcast but like I said, content and citations is their baby, not mine.Mcvizual (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

no, we need independent sources. their radio show is not indepedent of them. the argument to rename is not going to go far, without some sense that there is actually decent, sourceable content to use. i will give it at try though, by linking to this conversation at the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I truly appreciate the effort. Like I said, I will let it to the Trinity leadership to provide the additional content/citations. I'll post their findings here for peer review before attempting to revamp the article. I'm done for the night. Take care.Mcvizual (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thx 4 thx

Thanks for your thanks re GMO edits. Can I solicit your opinion on whether the Marsh vs Baxter case warrants a separate article? I think it does and am looking for an appropriate title. In Western Australia, there is an issue that "organic" farm produce sells for much higher prices than "mined" crops and "battery" animals, etc, and that there is a large potential export market if the chemicals and patent technologies can be kept at bay. Like yourself (as I understand), I have no vested interest either way but do like to see a rational discussion. Regards Bjenks (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be an interesting article, yes! For examples from other countries, see Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser (canada), Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (US). thanks for fixing the typo (embarassing) and improving otherwise. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding .global page

My apologies. I added more sources as requested, and I am involved with the registry operating the TLD and got notified by the lack of content on the page that one of our resellers linked to from it's site. I hope the added sources and aparse content is ok now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeasoderlund (talk • contribs) 15:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Jeasoderlund. It sounds like you do have a conflict of interest. You should disclose that conflict on your userpage (here) and refrain from editing the article directly going forward, and instead suggest changes on its talk page, using the "request edit" template described in our WP:COI guideline. I have also placed a text-box on the Talk page of .global (Talk:.global so that with one click, you can set up an edit request. Thanks, and good luck! Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		I've provided pro-bono advice to a couple organizations recently, that ended up being helped by you on-Wiki. After warning them of the un-professional and chaotic nature of Wikipedia, I was duly impressed by your reasonable responses and willingness to invest the time in actually editing articles. After making my own COIN post, I took a look at the board to see that none other than Jytdog was practically single-handedly holding down the fort. I was somewhat on the opposite side of you in the discussion about the COI of someone writing about their father scientist, and after investigating the sources closely, you turned out to be right. Given this and seeing Request Edits being handled competently and search results for promotional phrases that I use to trim promotionalism coming down, I'm starting to have renewed faith in Wikipedia's ability to competently handle both good faith and bad faith COI in a drama-free manner. In case nobody else has noticed your good work yet, I figured somebody should. CorporateM (Talk) 20:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

That is super nice of you corporateM. three or four other folks are doing things regularly there - it is not just me. i do wish there were more. but thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Warning about your incivility...

Per my comment here [2] you have been warned. Atsme☯^Consult 16:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

please tell me what I wrote that was incivil there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

All of it. Just start striking the entire post because it is filled with unsupported allegations: [3]. I have grown weary of you discrediting me and making it appear as though I support a drug that is banned by the FDA. That accusation alone is actionable because it is based only on your incorrect assumptions which are totally unsupported by the diffs. For example, the natural news link was a RS to cite for content in Griffin's book, and has nothing to do with what I support or believe. Griffin wrote the freaking book, not me. You seem to have a problem understanding what makes a source reliable; i.e. how it is used. The passages I wrote at Griffin (that you reverted) focused on the author and his books. I took a biographical approach to what was written in his books including his views and motivations. Per BLP: Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. FYI, WP:FRINGEBLP further confirms it. Let me be clear for the umpteenth time, I am not promoting laetrile, and if you don't strike your false allegations, you best start compiling some diffs. I've asked you politely on numerous occasions to please stop making false allegations and to stop policing me. We are allowed to write about an author's views, especially his most controversial ones, and we shouldn't have to contend with other editors creating false impressions that we support those views. You need to stop it now, Jytdog. I have run out of options and don't know how else to stop your bad behavior short of ARBCOM. Atsme☯^Consult 18:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

policing you? i have no idea what you mean. i avoid you as much as i can. Ok you have now made it clear that you object to me saying that you were promoting laetrile. Let me see if i actually wrote. If i did, i will strike that. Thanks for clarifying. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

so what I actually wrote on SV's page, was "In that article, you been trying for months now to remove MEDRS-sourced content critical of the use of amygdalin as a cancer treatment, and instead to write more positive content based on sources like naturalnews.com. " I think that is an accurate description. I also wrote there, "'l'll end this by noting that the promotion of amygdalin as a cancer treatment is actually called quackery in the reliable biomedical literature (PMID 219680). There is quacking here, but it is not financial, but rather advocacy for FRINGE medicine." If you read that carefully, I did not say that you were promoting laetrile. I didn't intend to say that you were, and I am sorry that you read it that way.

i didn't see anything about you promoting laetrile in my reply to at SV's page either.

in the deletion discussion, i originally wrote "This specific realization of that idea, is actually an effort to create a tool to allow COI to be used as a cudgel to get FRINGE health claims into WP", which I later amended to say "appears to me to be is actually an effort to create a tool to allow COI to be used as a cudgel to get FRINGE health claims into WP". . Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• completely out of left field... i bowed out of the Griffin article in reaction to your trying to edit war in, the edits to the article that Alexbrn linked to, on SV's page. I re-read that edit you made. The content about laetrile (commenting only on that part) is actually not bad. No naturalnews.com or other flakey sources. if the tenor of the relationship among editors on the Talk page would change, I could see the article ending up not ~too~ far from there. But on the other hand, even the in the current RfC you are still arguing to include content like that on the MSKCC website... so i guess your perspective hasn't changed that much.. and arguing for that, really is arguing for FRINGE, against MEDRS. I had actually amended what I wrote on the basis of the edit Alexbrn linked to, but due to the stance you are still taking at RfC, I just undid that. I am comfortable with what i wrote. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand your view and agree with the principal of MEDRS as it relates specifically to the substance or drug, but not with its misapplication as it relates to biographical material about an author, including why that chose to write about a particular topic, which is what was censored in Griffin based on MEDRS. If information about the author is RS (which includes self-published material about himself) it should not be censored based on the assumption that MEDRS applies to every single statement in a BLP. In fact, FRINGEBLP guidelines which includes how it applies to BLP policy actually supports mention of such topics as long as it is not given undue. Allowing editors to censor an author's literary work is neither NPOV, nor is it an encyclopedic approach to writing biographies. To begin, there is a disclaimer about laetrile in the introduction of the book. Griffin wrote about the substance based on what was published by medical authorities and scientists who were mainstream at the time but were subsequently disproven. I cited published academic papers as well as scientific papers about that controversy all of which were deleted as were other RS including what is published today regarding the way ACS and NIH approaches the topic. The BLP begs to be updated and expanded with balanced, NPOV, RS biographical material.

I think one of the most important things we must guard against is the profound censorship of important information relevant to the overall context of an article, especially when the purpose of doing so is to push a particular POV. It is an egregious act and challenges the very nature of the project's encyclopedic intent. Censorship not only short changes our readers from acquiring information that should be included, it may also pave the way for a BLP to become a coatrack or attack page. In Griffin's situation, the BLP appears to be nothing short of a coatrack for the purpose of condemning laetrile (which should be sourced to updated reports by the FDA, ACS, and NIH), but at the same time, censorship should not prevent the author's views from being included which were cited by other RS. Did POV advocacy play a role in censoring the author's political beliefs? Was FRINGE misapplied to justify censoring everything else relating to the author's views from a biographical perspective? Ironically, the answers depend on one's POV. I also don't think WP:IAR should apply to a BLP.

As long as the relative PAGs are vague, COI and advocacy issues will continue as will the TE and incivility born of those topics. It is not about whether you or I disagree. It is about finding resolve through clarity and NPOV. Advocacy poisons the well, and to quote Davis, conflict of interest is like "dirt in a sensitive gauge". How can one realistically eliminate all doubt about an individual's intent if they are a self-proclaimed "quack buster" or "skeptic"? From a political bent, what about those who proclaim their dislike for progressives and liberals or vice versa via the use of polemic user boxes or otherwise proclaim their political leaning, alma mater, sports team, etc.? It would be foolish to expect liberals to not collaborate on articles about conservatism because it creates a COI...unless they are on the payroll of George Soros, and the same would apply in reverse to conservatives on the payroll of the Koch Bros. How do we prevent unpaid advocacy groups from pushing their agendas in situations where they simply outnumber us and are perceived to reflect the views of the community, regardless of whether fewer but more experienced editors perceive it to be noncompliant with NPOV? What solutions do you propose to seasoned editors who recognize that BLP vios exist as do NPOV vios in other articles but can't/won't do anything about it because of the COI duck behaviors described in the essay?

PS: Regarding your response above about your disparaging remarks, I totally disagree, and have made note of your response. Atsme☯^Consult 17:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Just two questions for starters:

1) who, working at the Griffin article, do you believe has a COI?

2) what leads you to think that? Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Collapsed discussion

No offense intended. The discussion over there has remained admirably focused given the contentious nature of the subject matter, and I was just trying to maintain that. Respectfully, Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 00:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

understood, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Abuse of warning

You are hereby advised that your accusation of canvassing at my TP April 5, 2015 and at the user's TP April 5, 2015 was inappropriate and constitutes an abuse of warning. As I explained to you here April 5, 2015, my efforts were about collaboration. You also need to evaluate your own behavior because it is certainly beginning to smell like hounding. Atsme☯^Consult 17:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

the notice wasn't abuse. if you do only contact one side of a content dispute, that is canvassing. maybe you are not done notifying people about the essay and intend to content people on all sides of the discussions at Naturopathy; if you did or do that, that would not be canvassing. you will do as you will. (btw I watch Gudzwabofer‎'s page, as i have had lots of discussions with him; your edit popped up on my watchlist - no hunting or hounding involved. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It was abuse. I am following guidelines, per Wikipedia:Collaborations. My invitation reads: Hi, Gudz (hope the nickname is ok), I am working on improving the following essay, WP:COIducks, and during my research to find areas of behavioral conflict, I ended up at Talk:Naturopathy where I read some of your posts. Since CAM, integrative and alternative medicine are mentioned in the essay, would you be so kind as to give it a read, and offer any suggestions at the essay's TP? Thx in advance. My response to the questions and comments preceding it further proves my course of action as inviting collaboration: [4] Evidentiary material can be easily researched, some of which can be found in the archives of AN, ANI, ARBCOM, AE, and on numerous TPs of related topics. It's all there for your perusal as it was for me. Just curious, do you think it is not an issue? One way to gage stability and issues with an article is to check traffic history, disputes, reverts/undos, edit warring, stability of an article, etc. I have no clue why you would accuse me of canvassing. Stop it. Atsme☯^Consult 19:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

we seem to disagree here. i do hope you notify other editors at Naturopathy of this essay, as they are also knowledgeable about that topic. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, it looks to me as if you repeatedly deny the clearly, civilly, and appropriately expressed concerns of other editors by accusing them of "abuse." SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

No worry, Jytdog. I finally have a collaborator, and good one to boot!! He added some really nice touches to the essay. It looks great. Question - since the essay is sort of an extension of COI guidelines, shouldn't the participants in the survey claim or acknowledge their COI statements if they have one on their UP? Since the essay is about identifying problem areas of COI, every participant in the survey with a COI statement needs to disclose it, including you according to the guidelines, right? Atsme☯^Consult 03:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

"sort of an extension of COI guidelines" ← no, it's a user essay with no guideline weight whatsoever. Even so, it's so toxic it is (deservedly) going to get deleted. Alexbrn (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If anyone has a COI they should disclose it yes, and that would go for me too. Why do you ask? Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Bloke walks into "the Ferret and Dramaboard" pub and says "What's the difference between a COI and a COI statement?" -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 04:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so if they have already published a COI statement on their UP, and they participate in an article where there may be a COI, are they supposed to indicate they have a published COI statement (like a link) somewhere in the discussion, or in the edit summary, or ???? Atsme☯^Consult 13:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

^{The boardtender replies, one is true the other may not be.} Atsme☯^Consult 13:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

^{The very hard issue is determining what is true about whether someone has a COI. We have no way on WP to know for sure. People even lie about being someone who would have a conflict. -see the recent history of Natalie Morales‎ - someone was impersonating her. There is a real epistemological problem here - "we see through a glass darkly" if you want to work on COI issues in WP, you need to take that very seriously. Ditto OUTING and everything it stands for (which is deep in the guts of WP) Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)}

• now i understand your question. There are two levels to this - Terms of Use per, and COI more generally. The Terms of Use are very explicit, about where you need to make disclosures if you are editing for pay. Doing any one of those, satisfies the ToU. In practice, we have been trying to get folks to disclose both on their User page, so we have a central location to see everything so we can better audit, and on the Talk page of the relevant article (we do that, with the "connected contributor" template). I have to note here, that although the ToU is a legal contract, there is no consensus in WP to take them as policy, and Arbcom has said that because there is no consensus to take it as policy, they will not act on ToU violations, as Arbcom cannot itself make policy. For matters that fall outside the ToU (COi without paid editing) it is murkier. What COI actually says, is "They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and on the talk page of the article in question". COI is "just" a guideline, but people that part of it pretty seriously. I am not aware of anyone getting blocked for refusing to do that, though.

*broader note... b/c COI is not policy and working on it steps very close to OUTING, it needs to be handled thoughtfully, with discretion, and by persuasion more than with a stick. People with a COI who have action taken against them here, have that action taken on the basis of violations of policies or guidelines that are very near to being policy, like MEDRS. In my experience (and while i have a lot it is not exhaustive) most editors want to be "good". You can work with folks like that, and the work is persuading them of the goodness of complying with COI. It can be done. Conflicted editors who don't care about WP, end up getting swiftly indeffed for policy violations. Super recent example (just this morning) check out User talk:David Coburn MEP and that user's contribs, and you will see what I mean. There are cases like wifione, though... those are hard.

*all that said, editors who really want to be transparent (a sign of a good Wikipedian), include a link to their COI declarations in their signatures, to make it super easy to see and avoid the problem of people ever not knowing about it and being upset about that. This is really the best practice. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Jytdog, just wanted to thank you for your further attempts to reason with said user about Russ Martin. As you can see, I tried to be nice to him and explain in detail on my talk page. Sadly he responded with personal attacks. Hopefully he will come around. Best, --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 10:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

sure.. advocacy is similar to COI and i deal with the latter a lot. happy to help. Jytdog (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I would probably argue he does have a conflict of interest. He actually admitted to being a donor to the subject's foundation, which is pretty stark to me. Anyways, that's beside the point. Let's see how it plays out. Fingers crossed things will calm down now. --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 10:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

COI gets thrown around too loosely - it has a specific meaning in WP. If you haven't read them and thought about them, please do read WP:ADVOCACY and WP:COI. Jytdog (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I've been editing Wikipedia since June 2010. I'm well aware of Wikipedia's definition of conflict of interest: "When an external relationship undermines, or could reasonably be said to undermine, your role as a Wikipedian, you have a conflict of interest." I would reasonably say that a donor to a foundation who is clearly editing in a bias manner does exhibit a conflict of interest. Anyways, as I previously said, I think this is beside the point. Let's just see how things pan out, and hope this editor sees some sense. All the best, --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 10:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

you and i agree that he is an advocate and that this is a problem. we don't need to agree on the COI part, i reckon. Jytdog (talk) 10:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed! Let's just keep our eyes on this. --Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 10:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Diabetes Mellitus / Medications

User jytdog, Why do you think it is edit war on medications? I am adding useful information to the section with reliable references. You want the section to talk about anti-inflammatory drug Aspirin but not an oral anti-hyperglycemic, Sulphonyl urea, why ? I am , to say the least, intrigued. Although there is a long separate article on anti-diabetic medications , I believe, we have to make some mention of different classes of medication on this page too. Please tell me what your specific objections are ? You removed, uncited text, fine but now I have included information from peer reviewed journals with citations? Is there anything that I have missed ? Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

replied at talk page. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

False accusations of edit warring

Please dont jump down my throat and accuse me of edit warring just because i do a single revert. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuropathic_pain&diff=655380815&oldid=655380571

I see on you talk page you have been accused of incivility on previous occasions.--Penbat (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

i have made no false accusations. you added content, i reverted, you reverted without discussion. That is edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I strongly resent your COI smear here

User_talk:Penbat#SPA_.2F_COI. I have neuropathic pain and have researched about a dozen different possible treatments. Scrambler device recently came to my attention and noticed there wasn't a Wikipedia article for it so i thought it was worth doing. Pleaee withdraw your smear immediately.--Penbat (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)