User talk:Jytdog/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jytdog. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Casein intolerance

Thanks for thoroughly checking this article. I didn't have access to Krause 2004, so I let it pass on good faith. Maybe I shouldn't have. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. Ambiguous remark! Is there something more you would like to say? Jytdog (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'll just have to be more careful checking new articles, esp. when they discuss medical topics. Those are not my expertise, and in fields that I do have expertise in, I often enough find claims that are falsified by their own references (usually some editor just misinterpreted the source). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

OH! I thought you were talking about good faith about my review! I see, you were talking about the article's initiator. reviewing new articles must be very hard and high throughput - I am grateful for the work you folks do. Jytdog (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Your recent Charles Shoebridge edit

Hello Jytdog I note you've again edited this article, despite having on the MDann52 talk page undertaken not to do so. This is your right of course, but you've also made edits which you neither drew attention to or gave reasons for in either your edit summary or within the comments you made on the article talk page. I've mentioned and responded to these edits in the section you created on the article talk page entitled "edits by MDann52"

I also note you've now expressed a willingness to compromise with other editors, and this of course is very welcome. Please see the aforementioned article talk page section, where you'll see I've added a response suggesting a compromise edit which hopefully deals with the issues that you did mention in your edit summary. Thanks for this - it would be good if this matter can be resolved, and it does appear some progress is now being made towards this. Best wishes, UK1000 (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

as i wrote to you before, you do not understand our policies, guidelines, and norms, have ignored efforts to explain them, and have just kept fighting for what you want. Your efforts to remove very well sourced information and add information with no sourcing at all, and the way you have conducted yourself on Talk, violate both the letter and the spirit of several of Wikipedia's policies. As I said on the Talk page, there comes a point when there is no purpose in trying further; I am done with you. If you don't understand what I mean, please see this essay. If you were to change your stance and start actually trying to learn, and deal simply and directly with the sourcing problems I have articulated several times, we could possibly get somewhere. But as it stands, I am done with you. Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Your comments are unfortunately again condescending and confrontational, as well as inconsistent with the discussion on the article talk page which, along with your disregard for both basic courtesy and Wikipedia policies (as suggested by the frequent reverting of your edits not by myself but by very experienced Wikipedia editors) is plain on the article talk page to see. Thanks however for your input. UK1000 (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC on replacement of Yahweh with YHWH

Ok, would you please reframe it? There were some changes from "God" to "YHWH". The point of course is that we have one pov editor who wants to change it all, and an RfC seems the best way to deal with it. Dougweller (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Took the editor to AN3 just now. Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

i totally see the problem! Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

And after discovering he ran through 50 articles at least making this change - in quotations even, or changing "the Canaanite god Yahweh" to YHWH which is a major content change (and probably pov as I doubt he thinks there was such a god, he is a firm believer the literal truth of the Torah), I started WP:ANI#New editor with multiple problems, restoring copyvio, changing Yahweh to YHWH in perhaps 50 articles, etc. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

GMO controversies

Everything I posted on the talk page was accurate. I would be happy to source anything you believe erroneous reliably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.215.166 (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Almost nothing that you wrote is true. Some of it may be partly true, but almost all the very general statements you made are not supportable. See questions below. Please feel free to reply to each point directly, nested within my comments. Please note that I am asking for reliable sources as we define that in Wikipedia (see WP:RS) (this means that the many many anti-GMO sites that are out there are not OK to use.)

Refactoring, to focus this. Let's go one statement at a time. Starting with the first sentence..

You,IP editor, wrote: "Most products on the market undergo a testing process which including independent testing which then makes public that information good or bad"

This is not true. Testing leading to regulatory approval is generally not published and the submitted tests are kept confidential by the regulatory agency. Please provide a reliable source showing that test results submitted for regulatory approval are commonly "made public." Please also provide a reliable source stating that products submitted for regulatory approval in the US commonly undergo independent testing.. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

quick note

I have a fondness for the new-fangled King James Old Testament transliterations; they certainly have their place. But in many cases I prefer the old classical Greco-Latin transliterations found in the Vulgate derived translations (and the KJV New Testament and Apocrypha), not because they are more accurate (They are not!), but because they are dignified by age, and because their classical endings are cool. So I prefer Elias to Elijah, Tobias to Tobit, Core to Korah, Jesus to Yeshua (or Joshua). To say nothing of Cyclops for Kuklops, Cyrus to Kuros, Dinosaur to Deinosauros, etc. ad nauseam.

But my preference is neither here or there. It is important to have the classical transliterations, even when they have fallen out use in modern English, because they are used in the older pre-KJV translations of the Bible, as well as in current translations in the Romance languages, where the classical transliterations have never gone out of fashion. The fact that they are obscure now, makes it more necessary, not less, to include them, so that readers who stumble across these mystifying names can find them on Wikipedia. There is now a page called Nohestan that redirects to Nehushtan, and a pet peeve of mine is to get redirected to page and find nothing about the actual term I typed in. I will grant you that in this case, it will be clear to any educated reader than Nehushtan must be a variant of Nohestan, but not all readers are educated, and anyway, what's the harm?

Thanks. Rwflammang (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no harm! It just should be sourced. Some jerk could write "Nihashtun", right? (people really do crap like that) Also if I had my druthers name would reflect scholarly consensus of appropriate vocalization. If there are vocalizations that are of historical interest (as you like to add) there is no harm, but readers should know they are archaic & no longer used... see what I mean? i think it is cool you are bringing in older version... but they should be put in context and sourced. thx!! Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you are deleting the AdvisorShares partnership from Philippe Cousteau Jr.'s page?

I'm new to editing Wikipedia but I do know a lot of random triva and have a relatively good grasp of the English language. I found out about Advisorshares from the history on Philippe Cousteau Jr.'s page after I saw something on the news about Philippe Cousteau Jr. coming to Iceland. I don't have any conflict of interest with AdvisorShares. They do not operate in my country. I explained in other posts that I am not the "ETFCanadian" and no one has yet proved otherwise. However, I do kind of have an adversion to people who try to hide the truth and deceive others. While I do not want to generalize or stereotype, there are a lot of people like this in the financial sector as anyone from Iceland knows.

I don't see why the stories and links about Advisorshares need to be hidden. From my knowledge there is freedom of speech in the US and you don't have crazy libel laws like in the UK. Plus the information that has been deleted is not libeling anyone, it is just restatement of facts as they were reported by journalist, judges and others. I do not want to get to a confrontation with you. It is against my nature. I would just like to know: Why does any negative but true information about a US financial company need to be hidden from the public? If it's not true or biased can't someone just make an argument for the opposite side? If you have a good reason, I would love to hear it!Icelandicgolfer (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not delete reference to advisorshares on the Cousteau page. If you want to discuss this further, please start a discussion on the Talk page of the article. I won't discuss it further here. Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

don't humor banned users though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

~~oh, i wasn't aware. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)~~ actually this user is not blocked or banned as far as i can see. however, there is certainly a lot of apparently conflict-driven game-playing going on..... Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No, this is still a sockpuppet even if the checkuser is not matching. The behavior is identical.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Mishnah or Midrash

I noticed your edit here. I think the previous version, saying Midrash, is also correct. The Midrash is also part of the Oral tradition. And if you meant to say that this text is referring specifically to halakhic traditions, which in itself I wouldn't agree with, then there are halakhic midrashim as well. In addition, the Mishnah is part of the Talmud, so after your change "Mishnah and Talmud" is a little overdoing things. In short, unless you have an additional argument, I'd like to restore Midrash and Talmud. Debresser (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

point well taken, i self-reverted. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Debresser (talk)

COI

Please advise me if I have a COI in editing pages concerning agriculture and specifically those with organic and related sustainability topics. I do research in developing an alternative agricultural model. I am not paid by anyone to do this research, and it is completely funded by the sales of tomatoes and peppers from my test plots. (I have 2 test plots. 1 is ~1/10th an acre and the other is ~1 acre.) I receive absolutely no outside funding from any industry or government, neither the organic industry nor the conventional industry. The produce is not certified organic. However:

The trials using the methods I am developing use these 10 principles:

Principle 1: No till and/or minimal till with mulches used for weed control

Principle 2: Minimal external inputs

Principle 3: Living mulches between rows to maintain biodiversity

Principle 4: Companion planting

Principle 6: The ability to integrate carefully controlled modern animal husbandry (optional and not currently part of the project)

Principle 5: Capability to be mechanized for large industrial scale or low labor for smaller scale

Principle 7: As organic as possible, while maintaining flexibility to allow non-organic growers to use the methods

Principle 8: Portable and flexible enough to be used on a wide variety of crops in many areas of the world

Principle 9: Sustainable ie. beneficial to the ecology and wildlife

Principle 10: Profitable

In the past I have worked in conventional agriculture, however that was over 30 years ago. So I doubt that is a COI either.

I honestly don't feel like there is a COI either way, since while I did make a living in conventional ag years ago, that was long past, and the trials I do now are not making me a living, any income simply funds the trials. But I am inexperienced with certain details about WIKI so I defer to your judgement and will be happy to post a COI if you think it is needed. If my trials end up being successful in scaling up to full size, then there could potentially be profits that might be needing to be disclosed. That hasn't happened yet, and might not ever happen.Redddbaron (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, let me say congrats to you, and to praise your courage. Not everybody has the guts to be an entrepreneur nor to actually do the hard work it takes to create new products, so I can only bow before you with respect to that. And let me thank you too - folks like you make the world a better place. If you can get rich doing that, all the better. So ...thanks! And good luck to you (really!!) Moving to your question... it is interesting and difficult. (Thank you for asking, btw) There are three different vectors here.

First of all, you clearly bring a lot of expertise to this topic. Expertise is super valuable here (and god knows we need more actual farmers involved in articles... I am constantly blown away by how ignorant - and how ignorant of their ignorance - many editors on food-related topics are, about farming. But there is a good side and a bad side to Expertise here. On the bad side, Experts sometimes try to add content to articles based on their own knowledge and authority, not on reliable sources, and can get impatient and exasperated with WP's requirement for sources. On the good side, experts often know the issues involved very well - and often have books and other documents (reliable sources!) at hand, that they use all the time, and can efficiently find and cite - which is mind-blowingly helpful. So - there is one double-edged sword for you to be aware of.
Second, passion. You definitely bring a passion to the organic/sustainable topics - and that passion is a great thing in that it drives you to contribute. But that passion is also a double-edged sword, as it ~can~ also lead to WP:ADVOCACY (if you haven't read that article, please do). So you have to watch yourself there. Advocacy is related to COI, but distinct. (there is a separate notice board here for dealing with problems caused by advocacy -- it is WP:NPOVN)
Third, the question you asked - COI. Based on what you wrote above, I don't think you have one, since it looks to me like you don't make more money if more people decide to buy organic. That is my judgement. If you want to be more confident, you could make the same posting at the noticboard for COI - WP:COIN and ask for the guidance of the community. (I did that, a year ago!)

Thanks again for asking, and good luck to you. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

back to the organic topic

You are welcome, and don't worry about advocacy. My purpose here as an editor is not advocacy, it is completely the opposite. I use wiki a lot in my research. But in doing that I come across good pages and bad pages that are useless as references. The bad pages are almost always the result of advocacy. So in those cases I have to do the hard work of researching it myself, because in writing the page with advocacy, the advocate also ruins the page as a reference work. (the purpose of any encyclopedia) Not because of what's there, but because of what isn't there. Specifically on the organic food page that you and me are both working on currently, it is advocates that ruined it, but certainly not organic advocates. ;) Redddbaron (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me ask you again, will you please explain what you see as missing from the page? Each time I have asked this you have written a general complaint. What I am looking for are examples of the kind of thing you think is missing. Bullet points... thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I am going to respond within your points. to make clear what is yours and mine, I am going to add your signature to your individual points. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

All the flaws in bullet points I don't have time to list. Sorry. But I did have time yesterday to work several hours on the page. So I can use that as an example.

citations: I started by fixing several links almost every citation needed or dead link on the page. It was a lot and it wasn't easy. A critical thinker needs those sources so as to be able to weigh their relevance and quality. That's pretty non controversial, even though 9 out of 10 had something positive to say about organic food. I did them all though, positive or negative. Only thing left is one paragraph near the top that quite frankly I still have no idea where it came from..Redddbaron (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

has nothing to do with bias, but thank you for updating citations. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Negative bias: The entire article has a negative bias, so much so that the lead paragraph that summarises the article read like a propaganda blog, but specifically yesterday I worked on removing the negative bias from just one section: taste. Anyone reading the section on taste and no knowledge on the subject would have to assume there is no difference. It simply isn't true. There is a significant difference in taste when ANY method of production changes. For example: Put a pig in a forest in the fall and let it eat acorns hickory and chestnuts etc... and sure enough, you can taste those nuts in its meat. Some people might like that, some might not, but the taste is different. No advocate of CAFOs can deny it, all they can do is ignore it, keep it a secret, and/or try to make sure nothing like that exists in the article to create their bias. But when I added what I did, I was careful to make sure I didn't advocate either. I could have said wow this makes everything taste so much better. Most the things I added to the taste section is regarded to taste better by the vast majority of people, some so much better as to be considered artisan and/or gourmet and winning awards. Instead I wrote: "Taste is subjective and thus hard to quantify. So ultimately it is the consumer that decides if organic raised food tastes better to them or not. However, the composition and quantity of certain things in foods that affect flavor, like soluble sugars, lipids, phenolic compounds, and brix, are affected by organic production methods" in order to maintain NPOV. .Redddbaron (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I just wrote a very long response and then deleted it. I will simply ask you - what is your reliable secondary source for your claims that organic food generally tastes better, because it is organic (not because it is fresher, etc - but because it is organic) ? If you do not have any, please say that. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

nutrition: I haven't tackled this one yet, but go read the 5 sources I posted for taste and others I posted in talk. Most the things that effect taste also effect nutrition as well. I would recommend adding this in the article under nutrition, and will address this eventually, when I have time. Shouldn't be surprising. That's why tastebuds evolved, imperfect as they may be. Again though, it would need to be done in a similar non biased way..Redddbaron (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The article already deals with nutrition, using reliable secondary sources. What is your complaint? Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

pesticides: Clearly the reason pesticides is a big issue is that the public has been told many pesticides are safe, later to learn they were not. Yet little to no mention of any of those many many pesticides, only more assurances that currently pesticides are safe unlike the mistakes from the past. :D That little game could go on for years! :D The alternate POV needs mentioned. Pesticides are actually not safe. What they are is tested in risk analysis to be safer than the benefits they provide. One is weighed against the other. The false dichotomy that people will starve if no pesticides are used is in that risk analysis.Redddbaron (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about organic food, not about conventional food. Levels of pesticide residues in/on conventional food are regulated, such that the levels to which people are exposed are safe enough. Please bring a reliable, secondary source, that says that those levels are not safe enough - that regulated levels of pesticide residues in food actually are detrimental to health. If you have none, please say so. Jytdog (talk)

I really understand, that to you - organic food is "better" - that it tastes better and is more "healthy". However, as far as I know. there are no reliable secondary sources that support your POV. This is what makes your complaints, and your efforts to push more positive content about organic food into the article, simply WP:ADVOCACY in Wikipedia. Out there in the world, you are free to say and think whatever you want. IN HERE - in Wikipedia - you MUST have reliable sources to support your claims. And on a topic that is controversial like this, there is no way anything but the best secondary sources are going to be allowed in. (btw there are plenty of primary sources that make claims that organic food is terrible in various ways -- those will not come in either). But can you really not see how you are just POV-pushing? If there were reliable secondary sources that supported your claims, we would already be using them in the article. I have written to you so, so many times about the need for sources for your claims, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. How can I help you understand this? (real question!) Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that without secondary sources it can't be added, so when the changes are made I add sources. I added 5 on taste. Could have added more but went with 1 good milk dairy source, one egg source, 2 meat sources (1 feeding study and 1 growth hormone study) and one good fruit veggie source. Those sources are just tip of the iceberg though. When I tackle nutrition NPOV problem, I have literally 100's available for me to use. (the USC website I used for 1 or 2 taste references has MANY more on nutrition) I'll try and systematically categorise and just use the best though, same as I did for taste.Redddbaron (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I am bummed that you didn't respond above. On taste, the only source that survived actually says that consumers like grass-fed beef less. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I responded on the organic food talk page with links to lists of over ~100 citations, all paywalls removed by CSU. A pretty fair % discuss taste flavor and/or carcass quality. But also discussed are health benefits, fat profiles, risk assessments, independent reviews etc... Almost all of them with positive conclusions. I didn't feel I needed to post in both places. I suppose you could remove or refuse to use all ~100 citations in order to assure the page retains its negative bias, but assuming you actually do wish to improve the wiki page (and I do assume that). There should be more than enough citations to make that page the best referenced page in all of the agricultural project pages. Especially since many other agricultural universities have similar lists but on different crops/foods and the effects organic production methods have on them. For example: there are hundreds of rice studies listed at Cornell University website (SRI being the organic method discussed). And there are hundreds of fruit studies found at Washington State University.Redddbaron (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Redddbaron We need reliable SECONDARY sources. Not primary sources. I just realized that you don't understand this distinction. In science, a "primary source" is the one where some scientist publishes the results of some experiments he or she has done. In science, a secondary source is a review article. I have been saying over and over that we need reliable secondary sources, and you have not understood what I was saying. Jytdog (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

also, we use the most current reviews that are available, that take into account all the work that has been done to date. You will notice that the reviews we cite (with the exception of the meat one that you added yesterday and I retained) are all from the last year or two. Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Organic food

Nice work on Organic food. Well done. bobrayner (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

thank you... ongoing! Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Brofiscin Quarry, Groes Faen

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

please discuss on the article Talk page. future readers should have a record of the discussion and if it is here, it is not part of the article's record. Jytdog (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem. I prefer to raise minor issues with the current editor first in case it is an oversight or unintentional but am happy to deal with in other ways. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

it is a simple discussion on talk. Jytdog (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated...

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

I appreciate your asking, but I have decided that those articles are too toxic to get involved with - there is no room for a reasonable middle. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Too bad, although I know what you mean, and my wikistress is high; normally I wouldn't spend so much time on this, but I will be gratified if editors get it right, and highly, highly amused, in a rueful way, if they get it wrong. But anyway. If good editors are driven away, "the terrorists have already won." With 2/0 and Brangifer editing, and Doc James, we're actually moving in a nice, objective direction. Hope you'll change your mind should the editing environment improve; you're a great editor, and have been a breath of fresh air. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 18:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Know the feeling ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) me too. They'll get their come uppance eventually. Enough rope, etc. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Just wish you, and to a lesser degree Alexbrn, were more willing/able to evaluate on the merits, no matter who posts. Oh well -- that's where you're at; everybody has to be somewhere. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 18:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

map from http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/ge-map/

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

It says right on the file name: "World map of GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) regulations. A CC BY-SA 4.0 version of http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/ge-map/ made from "BlankMap-World-large"" - it is either downloaded directly from them or it is a derivative work of the CFS map. Either way, with no license from CFS this is copyvio. Please take it down from everywhere you have put it until CFS releases it freely. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I downloaded "BlankMap-World-large", a grey-and-white world map, from wikipedia commons. I've added colors on this map myself, using GIMP, and infos found on various webpages (foreign government websites, news pages, recent (2014) infos for Kenya and Kyrgyzstan, etc). I've removed the different green colors now, because yes, I agree, it can be copyrighted research. All other infos can be found on other websites. Removing the CFS source doesn't change anything. You know, I'll get 66 news pages for the 66 countries, if you prefer. ;) Le Déchaîné (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed from the pages, I'll do a better job by adding more links soon. Le Déchaîné (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You can ask other people's advice if you want. Wikipedia:Media copyright questions but wikipedia is really serious about copyright - please don't do anything to legally harm WP. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Re

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

I don't understand your point, sorry. Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Since the case discussed here is one of the first, we should add information when available, thus info in regards to when treatment begun, or mention briefly previous health conditions. --prokaryotes (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

i don't agree (and fairly strongly) and am curious as to why you think that kind of information is within the scope of this article. shall we take this over to the article talk page? You have my permission to copy/paste or cut/paste everything I wrote here... or give me your permission, and I will do it. or start over! as you will. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's worth to mention, however if that information isn't in the article i won't mind either, that's why i cautioned above about accuracy. If you like to discuss it further go ahead i might chip in later. Cheers. --prokaryotes (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments re: my COI

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

Looks good! Jytdog (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Biofuel & socks

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

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

Sub-Title: "Persecution" in WP article "Judaism"

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

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

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 Blacksun1942 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please check

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

don't care about the editor, i care about the edit. (even broken clocks are correct twice a day) I opened a discussion on the Talk page - please respond there. thx. Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a faulty philosophy because it may find you restoring edits for a banned editor, sockpuppet, or vandal for which you could be held responsible.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

we differ on that. i will happily provide reasoning for each edit i make, and happily apologize for any errant edit i make if someone provides solid reasoning that it was wrong with a basis in policy, guideline or plain old common sense. you've provide no such reasoning... let me say that i do appreciate your work cleaning up after vandals and POV pushers. thanks for that! Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A good edit made by a bad person is still a good edit. Our first priority should be the encyclopædia, and it strikes me as terribly petty to intentionally degrade the encyclopædia because of some other disagreement with a person that we've ostracised. Berean Hunter, I greatly respect your judgment on other things, but here I must disagree. If anybody is "held responsible" for a good edit made by somebody else, give me a link to that discussion, and I'll defend them. bobrayner (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Another (talk page stalker). This caught my eye, so I went back and looked at the edits. At the Race (biology) page, I agree with Berean Hunter's revert, no question about it. But at the Hybrid (biology) page, I agree with Jytdog that the edit was, on its merits, a good edit. If I try to parse the argument here, I think that it is true that when any editor restores a reverted edit, that editor is responsible for having done so – but I think that in this case, Jytdog has nothing to apologize for, because the restored content improved the page. That also doesn't mean that it was wrong of Berean Hunter to have reverted both edits by the IP: it is reasonable, on the face of it, to revert what may appear to be bad edits from what appears to be a disruptive editor. But when another editor comes along, evaluates the content in question, and makes a responsible decision to restore some good content, then that's just the Wikipedia editing process working the way that it is supposed to. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Tryptofish is right on this. We let that process play out at Talk:Hybrid (biology)#Between two "races" where I'm content letting the editors there decide. There is a pre-existing conflict over these terms that I don't want to ~~be baited into~~ engage in.:) My comments above about a faulty philosophy is as a general one because I knew that Jytdog didn't deliberate on anything but the edit itself and no other criteria...hence, my use of the word may and I should have included the word someday. I didn't know that this editor that we were discussing was one of those (banned editor, sockpuppet, or vandal) and I think Bobrayner has taken it that I implied that they were. I didn't mean to give that impression.

Based on policy, we do sometimes rip editors' contributions out wholesale. That happens because bans apply to all editing, good or bad and it is meant to be a discouragement to them that none of their edits stick. When considering edits by and on behalf of banned editors, "...the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." Many socks are considered de facto banned and their edits may be reverted without having to analyze each one. Wikipedians are also not allowed to proxy "good" edits.

I appreciate Jytdog's comment above "let me say that i do appreciate your work cleaning up after vandals and POV pushers. thanks for that!" and he should know that I appreciate his work as an editor also. :) I never considered this as anything much on the disagreement scale...we just went back to editing.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

yep :) Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

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

No hard feelings. Group hug?

bobrayner (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI

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

Reverting my edit

I would like some guidance relating to the Interleukin 2 page. You continue to revert my edits, which come directly from Dr. Robert Gallo. What am I doing wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryhammel (talk • contribs) 14:02, 2 October 2014‎ (UTC

i was somewhat worried that something like that was going on. first of all, you apparently have a conflict of interest, and you should declare that and follow the rules at WP:COI. Please note that if you are being paid to edit, it is a violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Use to edit Wikipedia for pay and not disclose that. This is also discussed at WP:COI. Turning to the edits in question. I went and did some reading after seeing and reverting you edits, and I now understand that Gallo and Smith have been having a stupid and bitter argument for years now about who "discovered" IL2. I now recognize that the current version of the article completely favors Smith's side. Your edits are no better, as they simply flip it to completely tell Gallo's side. I plan to work on the article over the weekend and tell the story neutrally, mentioning both of them, and simply describing what they did, and avoiding any mention of "discover". But please know that "straight from Dr. Robert Gallo" does not give what you say more authority, it actually gives you less, because it shows that you do not understand how Wikipedia works. We rely on independent, reliable, published sources. Anything Gallo told anybody privately is 100% out of bounds for use in WP, as it is not verifiable. Anyway, as I said above, I now recognize that the article needs to be fixed and I will take care of that over the weekend. btw, are you OK if I copy all of this to the IL2 Talk page? That is where this should be. thx Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

note - as I was working i decided to forgo names altogether and just described the unfolding work. it is unusual in science-focused articles to ascribe this or that step along the way to anyone. in a biographical page of a scientist, we do of course describe the scientist's accomplishments. Jytdog (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent EM

And who are you? (Kasmith (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC))

jytdog. Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

To say a bit more. Taking your description at your User page at face value, you chose to disclose your real life identity here in Wikipedia. That is not a requirement and we have a strict policy against WP:OUTING - against trying to find out who anyone is in real life and discussing that here. (with the exception, that is, of sockpuppet investigations, where one person has multiple accounts and uses them to try to win arguments about content in violation of our policies, and in those cases there are users who are allowed to really dig - and have tools to dig) At the same time, there is also the WP:COI guideline that I pointed you to (and additionally, part of the Terms of Use has stated since June of this year that if you are paid to edit, you must disclose that.) The intersection of these two important principles -- the ability to be anonymous and protection for anonymity, on the one hand, and problems with Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia on the other -- is one of the thorniest issues here, that has provoked zillions of hours and pixels of discussion. Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

speaking of which, did you see the note above? (this one). I found that very sad. Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Primary, secondary, and tertiary references and veracity

Relying on secondary and tertiary references to be more "true" than primary references because the "community" has presumably vetted them is fallacious. Please read (http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fimmu.2013.00079/full), which goes into the "hidden agendas" that many review authors have used, and how it corrupts our literature and the field. (Kasmith (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)).

With regard to some "community" vetting sources - what are you talking about?

with regard to the use of secondary sources in WP, i suggest you read this Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This issue is essentially about how new knowledge is acquired, how it's veracity is established and how it is reported to the public. How does one know what is "true"? (Kasmith (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC))

Wikipedia has an epistemology, described in our sourcing guidelines WP:RS for WP:MEDRS, then our content guidlines WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Besides violating our COI guideline, most of your work on the IL2 and IL2R articles was a violation of WP:SYN (a section of WP:OR) in that you strung together a bunch of primary sources to tell a story that you wanted to tell, as though you were writing a scientific review article. That is not how we work here. Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

i want to add that i am very aware that both science and wp are human institutions and as such, flawed in many ways. we (human, flawed editors) do our best to use the best practices of both institutions, to craft Wikipedia content that reflects "truth" as best we can. i don't expect perfection. i and others strive for it. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a sad day indeed, when those responsible for informing the public about science and medicine do not trust the biomedical science literature. You should read: The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World by David Deutsch. (Kasmith (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but I don't know what prompts your comment about "not trusting the scientific literature." You are being elliptical for the second time now. What is your point here? Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What I mean is that in science, compared with other aspects of life, we are fortunate in having a written record of the experiments that have led to the creation of new knowledge. Our tradition, which dates to the 1st publication of the Royal Society in 1665, is to document results of experiments in the scientific literature. Thus where possible, I have always stressed with my students,

"you cannot discover anything new unless and until you know what has already been discovered. Moreover, it's not enough to rely only on textbooks and review articles, which are often outdated and are rife with the biases of the author who composed the summary/review. One must go to the primary literature and find the beginning of an area, and determine who were the investigators involved who made the critical discoveries, how they did it, and whether their data support their conclusions, and whether the data have withstood the test of time."

If Wikipedia distrusts the primary literature in science, then it cannot be relied upon for accurate information.(Kasmith (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC))

Wikipedia does not "distrust the primary literature." Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Request Feedback on Fluoride Controversy

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

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

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

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

Fluoridation: Errors & Omissions (1960): http://www.scribd.com/doc/212649060/Fluoridation-Errors-and-Omissions-in-Experimental-Trials-2-Ed-Phillip-Sutton-1960
Chapter 10: http://www.fluoridation.com/sutton.htm
Author Obit: http://www.fluorideresearch.org/283/files/FJ1995_v28_n3_p123-124.pdf

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

Excerpt, p 380:
“For nearly a decade after 1931, the PHS sought to remove excessive fluoride from water supplies because of endemic mottled teeth. But after 1940, the balance began to tilt in the opposite direction - to augment water supplies with fluoride. On the basis of studies on a very small number of healthy young men, plus limited surveys of health effect in natural fluoride areas, PHS scientists concluded that fluoride had no significant adverse effect on health, except for occasional mild mottling….. “

pp 304-305 In 1939, the level was 0.1, then they raised it to 1.0 to 1.5 in 1946 based on based on research of five young healthy men.
pp 260- (the initial scientific debate of the 40s into the 50s.)
pp 285 - 289 WHO vote and American Academy of Allergy statement
pp. 301…. 1938 Mellon, Kettering, Cox & ADA
p 344 succinct experiment re periodontal disease, missing teeth with age and kidney disease in lab experiment. Books includes other references to gum diseases and missing teeth in locales with high natural fluoride on 4 continents, including in USA.... but this conversation is primarily about the controversy.

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

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

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

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

AfD discussion on beta-casein-related article

You may be interested in this candidate for deletion. My listing it for deletion today prompted an editor to double its size from 13 words to 26; you may some views on its merits or possibilities. It seems to me you have the notable aspect of the subject covered in the casein article. BlackCab (TALK) 13:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

The two of you need to stop edit warring. You do not own this article. The edit I made is better sourced and updated. It makes more sense and makes things very clear to the reader. This isn't about you and Gandydancer. Stop! Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Valsartan/sacubitril

Jytdog, what medical journals do you read regularly? If any? --Nbauman (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

i am in and out of medical journals every day. there is no journal i read regularly, i don't have time. Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you don't have time to read even one medical journal regularly, how do you know that my characterization of medical journals is a fringe POV, rather than a mainstream opinion of the editors of those same journals, published in those same journals? --Nbauman (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

i just told you - i am in and out of journal articles all day - i use the literature all the time as part of my work - i just don't read any single journal regularly - would love to have that leisure. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You accused me of having a fringe POV, because I said that some medical journal articles are marketing or advertising. All of the major medical journals have made that point. If you had read any of those journals regularly, you'd know that. How can you tell that my view is a fringe POV, if you haven't read the medical journals that have published all the articles that hold the same view? --Nbauman (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

is there some reason we are having this discussion in 2 places? What you actually wrote, was "It's a pre-approval advertisement for the drug..... Publishing a randomized controlled trial, where the drug company has control over the design and publication of the trial, gives just one side. They're written under the direction of the marketing department. Drug salesmen distribute them to doctors. Even the drug companies refer to them as marketing. Some doctors refer to them as advertising." This is a ridiculous oversimplification and generalization, to the point of being FRINGE. Yes indeed. And as I wrote on your Talk page and elsewhere, giving boatloads of WP:WEIGHT to a clinical trial result and discussion of it, is not what we do here. If what you want to do, is grind your axe about publication of clinical trial results, WP is not the place to do it. And article talk pages are not a forum for your views on the scientific publication enterprise either. But let me acknowledge that I believe you are well intentioned. You just expressed a very strong, and in my view FRINGE, POV on that. You see the world through your lens. I wish you hadn't done it. I should just have ignored it, since it was off-topic. I regret that I didn't - my bad for taking the bait, as I said on the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You accuse me of having a fringe view and POV pushing, which I think is an insult that impugns my credibility and professionalism. I'm trying to figure out what evidence you think you have for that accusation. And if you have no evidence, I want you to retract it.

By definition, WP:FRINGE is "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field".

I've given you examples of major authorities who have published articles in major peer-reviewed journals which repeatedly say that studies sponsored by drug companies and published in their journals are "marketing". Even the drug companies agree that they are marketing. Some authors use stronger language. This is scholarship in the field that broadly supports the idea that company-sponsored publications are "marketing." An idea that's broadly supported doesn't meet the definition of WP:FRINGE.

You are falsely accusing me of promoting a fringe idea. How can it be a fringe idea if it's broadly supported by scholarship in the field, and therefore doesn't meet the definition of WP:FRINGE? --Nbauman (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

you are like a pitbull! i'll repeat - the statement I quote above is an absurd oversimplification and generalization. the same kind of overbroad black and white rhetorical statements that Angell has reduced herself to making. it is a sad thing. if you want to back off that statement and make it more grey so it reflects the real world, my reaction that it is FRINGE will likely go away. i understand activism and the desire (and point) of making strong statements to get people's attention. that is one thing. describing the real world is another. Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not an oversimplification. I'm quoting directly from articles written by editors of major peer-reviewed journals, and published in those same journals. They repeatedly describe RCTs published in their journals as "marketing" for the drug companies. That's a mainstream, consensus view.

Angell is a medical doctor, she was the editor of the most-respected medical journal in the world, and she is now a professor at Harvard. I doubt that your credentials in and understanding of medical publishing are anywhere near hers. For WP purposes, she is a WP:RS and you are not. The same is true of Richard Horton, Richard Smith (editor), Richard Lehman, John Ingelfinger, Jerome Kassirer, and more, all of whom refer to journal articles as "marketing". It's preposterous for you to describe their criticism of the pharmaceutical industry as a "fringe view." It's disruptive editing for you to delete all their criticism based on your personal, non-expert opinion. On WP, one person can destroy a good article.

And as I said on Talk:Valsartan/sacubitril, I had decided to give up trying to argue with you. The only reason I continued was that you came to my talk page and posted the false, insulting false charge that I am pushing a NPOV, fringe idea, and you distorted my words (and the words of mainstream medical journal editors) beyond recognition. I can't leave that on the record unanswered. And I'm not going to stoop to your level of personal insults. --Nbauman (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

first, removing sources that fail MEDRS and content based on them from a health-related article is not disruptive. we have to do that all the time, when editors get overenthusiastic digging into primary sources. Second... i do acknowledge that there are a lot of people who feel that the pharma/biotech industries are corrupt and corrupting and yes one can read endless books and articles about that. I have acknowledged that all along, i believe. And I have said, several times, that all these editors are still in the business of medical publishing, and these articles continue to be published, and they continue to serve their purpose. The real world is what I am holding up against you, to say that the broad brush strokes you have painted with, just do not correspond to what the mainstream is actually doing every day. Going through Horton's 10 points:

Manipulation: yep this happens sometimes. fraud is rare.
sponsorship bias: yep this is a problem. (this is also a problem with academic publishing, but relates more to getting one's next grant by showing that the hypothesis in the grant was Important and True)
undisclosed adverse events: happens but this is just stupid and my bet is that it is rare. would be interested to see data on this.
not publishing negative data. this is a problem across the board. positive results publication bias is everywhere. interesting that he notes Paxil here. the SSRI blowout was more politics driven than data driven, and suicide rates among adolescents has gone up since the black box label went on SSRIs.
undisclosed COI - this is pretty well managed these days. this was definitely 9 years ago,
editorial kickbacks. this appears to be mostly name-calling. companies do have to buy reprints if they want to give the papers to doctors, payors, and other stakeholders.
ghost writing - yep it happens
CME - this one is completely bizarre to me. if countries and medical societies don't want to take money from pharma, they shouldn't take it.
This is the most bizarre one of all. What is the actual complaint against pharma/biotech there? I can't see one.

All that adds up to "yep there are some problems". Not the broad brush strokes you painted. And as I have said several times, it is the broad brush that makes it FRINGE in my eyes; it just a matter of lack of moderation, of too much black and white. Jytdog (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Enthusiastic about the truth!

Dear Jytdog, Would you let me talk to you for a moment. When a great scientist is working on a difficult problem, does he just know the answer. Does he take a stance and guard it or does he refuse to take a permanent stance and flow with the tide of the latest research. Which strategies do great reasoners with great courage use to stand up for what is right and thereby gain the respect of their peers for generations?

I think it is easiest to define a good scientist by objectively measurable qualities and leave the subjective stuff to the arts & individual spirituality. Modern science has produced Multiple Intelligence Theory as an objective way of defining the ways people can be intelligent in different areas. Sometimes scientists are very highly developed in many lines but have difficulty noticing their blind spots because they haven't had a friend introduce them to Multiple Intelligences Theory, and many people are uncomfortable adopting continues on with medieval stereotypes about biomedical subjects.

In the very near future, a good way for us to assess our scientists' balance of these different intelligences would be for them to, simply, take a multiple intelligences test online. Won't it be amazing when scientists everywhere realize that the tools to hone their own minds and their own self-awareness exist only seconds away? Even more incredible is how widespread understanding of the scientific method is. Truly science is making great progress in understanding nature right now. It's even bizarre because so often we learn something a year ago or ten years ago and that idea has already been made obsolete.

I just want to THANK YOU for your efforts in maintaining scientific rigor and being a truly amazing, humble contributor who's always willing to question archaic ideas. Thanks Jytdog, Boleroinferno (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your kind words. not sure if you are looking for my thoughts in the first paragraph, or just teeing up your idea in the second. I will just respond to that. i doubt that any kind of online IQ test will be able to predict scientific success. In my experience it is a mixture of a lot of things. It doesn't even take brilliance, as much as it takes asking the right question at the right time, and actually looking at what is in front of you. lots of human skills are required too (if nobody gives you money you cannot get anything done, no matter how great your ideas are; you have to be able to get funding). and a LOT of hard work and persistence. Good luck here, in any case. Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2014 (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. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI, about the other editor, I saw you describe her at one point as being new here. In fact, not, see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive154#SW3 5DL. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Leptospermone Antibacterial?

In vitro activity against bacteria does not make the citation medical in nature, so far it is more biological. So at that stage where medical application / activity is not yet concerned, I believe a primary source may be feasible wrt. MEDRS. Think of action as a food preservative etc. The src was from a food science article. 70.137.135.214 (talk) 09:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Also think of an unwanted action, maybe shared with synthetic derivatives, as a biocide, acting on beneficial or symbiotic bacteria. Would still not be medical in nature. 70.137.135.214 (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

i'd be happy to discuss on the article Talk page, if you want to open a discussion there. you can just copy this there, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Davidbena

What's your next step? Waiting if the editor got the message, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, or something else? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

since an admin has been summoned, I will wait for him or her. I will also keep my word, of my last warning. I was not aware of the arbcom notice when i wrote that; if i had been aware i would have gone directly to AE instead of issuing the last warning. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for Intervention

User:Jytdog, Hi. There is a question about what is considered worthy or not worthy of publishing on a WP article page in terms of photos because of what may or may not be perceived by others as distasteful (bad taste). The editor, User "PacificWarrior101," who has lately been joined by User "Amire80," have posted a Commons photograph of Israeli singer and transgender, Dana International, a photograph which I personally feel shows bad taste and tends to "flout" the dignity and self-respect of the Yemenite Jewish people. I voiced my concerns to the editor about my feelings of repugnancy evoked by the picture on a main article page, Yemenite Jews, that treats on ethnicity and, to a large extent, the history of Yemenite Jews. Most Yemenite Jews will feel a sense of shame by seeing this photo of "Dana International" on the page that speaks specifically about them as a people - and who, by the way, are mostly conservative to religious. While I have no personal problems about discussing issues of transgender, here the matter is different. Dana International's photograph on the main page of an article which treats on ethnicity is tantamount to putting up an image of the serial killer "Son of Sam" (David Berkowitz) on the ethnicity page, Jews. Or, let's say, a photo of Israeli troops shooting at an Arab child, on a page which speaks on Israeli ethnicity. There should be a place for common considerations as for what is tactful and what is not, particularly when the photo is controversial and evokes shame. See the Talk page on Yemenite Jews, and the sub-section: "Flouting an Ethnic Group." Any advice by you will be much appreciated.Davidbena (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

i am very sorry but wikipedia is not censored. That is wikipedia policy. So an argument that an image might offend some people will go nowhere - that argument violates policy. Like it or not, Dana International is of Yemenite Jewish stock, and is a world-famous person. (you cannot argue that is she not WP:NOTABLE) I see no good argument you can make within Wikipedia to exclude her image from that article. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

In your opinion, can I use the following argument? According to WP:Image use policy, "images are included in articles to increase the reader's understanding of the subject." With this view in mind, if a collage is meant to be a representation of the whole, then the picture of Yeron Cohen (alias "Dana International") is out of place. The insertion of that one photo does not aid in helping the reader's understanding of the subject, especially in light of the fact that it is controversial and arouses certain associations, and tends more to "discredit" an ethnic group.Davidbena (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

i do not think that will fly. if the goal is to represent the whole, dana international is definitely part of the whole. "discredit" is a value judgement that will carry no weight and will communicate to other editors that your goal is indeed to censor the article.Jytdog (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

i had no idea you were actually trying to do this, until today. ugh. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating essays

Fascinating essays on your userpage!

Have you ever watched the show Penn & Teller: Bullshit! ?

— Cirt (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

:) i have not had the pleasure! Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I took the page List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit! to Featured List quality. If you have a chance, catch an episode sometime and let me know what you think of the show? — Cirt (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

i watched a few episodes on youtube last night. great great stuff! thank you! Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You're most welcome! Did you catch their bit about Dihydrogen Monoxide ? — Cirt (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

oh my i just watched a clip! brilliant! "it's everywhere, in our lakes and reservoirs. in our baby food, everywhere." Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola article

Please remove the mention of an email from SW3's talk page since as you know I did not send any emails to you (or anyone else, as far as that goes). Perhaps it does not bother you to see it used to add to his poor characterization of me, but it does matter to me. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, please don't come back to my talk page. Unfortunately, neither of you have made constructive comments there and as I said on my last post, that conversation has ended. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that was interesting. Actually I had no intention of calling SW3 5DdL a "mother fucker". I had something different in mind which was a play on words, but our conversation was cut short when you (correctly) reminded me that it was not acceptable to discuss him/her on your talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please do not

accuse people of adding material that they did not add, such as "Your content, " Still other publications appear as advertising disguised as science." is reverted because it violates the policy," at Talk:Sugar_beet. If you stopped to think a little more it might seep through to you that the reason these pages get so much controversy is because you are inhibiting discussion of points that people don't understand. But I've had enough of your don't-dare-to-discuss-these-matters-because-I-own-the-pages attitude and will not discuss this further. Good bye. Please do not edit my talk page, and I won't edit yours again. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

you are welcome to come here as much as you like. i will honor your request to not come to your Talk page further. I would be happy to continue the discussion at Sugar Beet if you care to respond there. best regards Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

btw, I see the mistake I made that you referred to. you were defending a third party's edit. i missed that. i will correct over on the talk page. thanks for pointing that out - my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It is just that I don't agree with you

Nothing personal, and if I believed it to be racist, I would be the first to expunge it. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

i am digging your respectful disagreement! thank you. i realize that was a loaded thing and actually just struck it as i cannot find good-enough sources. there is lots and lots of sociological writing on colonialist/orientalist use of "guru" and other hijackings from eastern religions and heck some people even accuse chopra of orientalism. but it is too complex an argument and doesn't read smackdab on this enough to work in the hothouse environment of the chopra article. so withdrawn. high level thing I am after is that calling him a "guru" is just ...tabloid-y. Not encyclopedic. to me, icky. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of RFC in violation of WP:TALK

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		for diffusive and even-handed input in editor disputes DocumentError (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

not sure what this is for but thank you! Jytdog (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just look at your edit history dude. :-) Well-deserved. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 10:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

that's very kind but i can be too harsh sometimes too and cause problems. but thanks! Jytdog (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your patient work at Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing, defending use of secondary and WP:MEDRS. A well-deserved barnstar! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

thank you. i need to patienter. Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Synthetic life

Mayday. I almost had convulsions when I read "3D printers to create synthetic life" in Craig Venter. I want to hit delete so badly I but want you to be my wing-man and keep me cool. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Biomedical Engineering wiki page

Thanks for reverting all my changes, and bringing the wiki page for 'Biomedical Engineering' back to the condition that it was in. The talk page clearly said: "If you can improve it, please do." linking to the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold And that is what I did.

I did not contribute based on "original research" or "non-verified" work (the reasons that you have cited while reverting the edits). All the information was from IEEE EMBS page, which was referenced right at the beginning of the section of Subdisciplines. This page needed huge improvements, and I spent huge amount of my time trying to do that. And I had clearly mentioned in comments that this still needs more work. It was in no way complete; it still needed references, more information under each subdiscipline, etc. What I had done was created a starting template (what you called an essay) for more people to come and contribute, because clearly there were lot such offers in Talk page before, but either disinterest or politics did not let those efforts materialize.

I can guarantee you that the edits reflected the wide field of BME much more than what it is right now. I had not deleted anything significant from what was already there. If you really think you are the guardian of this page, I highly suggest that you improve it. Thanks! A Proud Biomedical Engineer - Craziwiki (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

you are new here. writing sarcastic notes is not a great way to start. and i am sorry but your personal "guarantees" don't have any meaning within WP. It is great that you want to improve wikipedia, but if you want your edits to "stick" you have to follow wikiepedia's policies and guidelines. if you have any questions about how wikipedia works i would be happy to help you, but you should start by reading the links to the policies and guidelines that i left on your talk page, and put in my edit note. good luck! Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

i don't think i disregarded any wiki policies and guidelines (as i told you my edits did not violate WP:OR and WP:VERIFY, they were all sourced from IEEE EMBS page, a highly regarded society).. good luck with wiki editing in that case.. the page is all yours Craziwiki (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

the page is neither yours nor mine. you are brand new here - you don't understand how wikipedia works - and you are fighting with me instead of figuring out your context. not how a good engineer operates in any system. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The Federalist (website)

I wanted to talk about your recent deletion at The Federalist (website). I don't understand how this is a WP:BLP issue? Yes RfC on the entry into Neil deGrasse Tyson's bio page has not been decided yet. But it isn't for reasons of verifiability. Neil deGrasse Tyson himself explicitly said: "But I was wrong about when he said it. It appears in his speech after the Columbia Shuttle disaster, eighteen months after September 11th 2001. My bad. And I here publicly apologize to the President for casting his quote in the context of contrasting religions rather than as a poetic reference to the lost souls of Columbia. I have no excuse for this, other than both events-- so close to one another -- upset me greatly." [2] As such this WP:BLPSELFPUB verifies the fact that it occurred, and eliminates any WP:BLP concerns. The reason that it wasn't immediately entered into Neil deGrasse Tyson's bio page is that there are still concerns about WP:WEIGHT. It is entirely possible that there is not enough WP:WEIGHT to include it in Neil deGrasse Tyson's bio page at all, and yet it still be relevant to the The Federalist (website) satisfying the WP:WEIGHT requirements for that page. Do you disagree, and if so why?--Obsidi (talk ) 03:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't know the details of this case, but logic surely dictates that if something's not weighty enough to be mentioned in somebody's bio, then it certainly isn't going to be weighty enough to be mentioned in an article about a web site (or in any less-specific article). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the website that originally accused him of misquoting president Bush, before he acknowledged that it occurred. Why couldn't it be weighty enough (compared to the overall story of the website that did the accusation), even if it isn't important enough to the overall story of the subject? This isn't just some random website that happened to talk about the story. --Obsidi (talk )03:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

let the conversation at the bio page finish. there is WP:NODEADLINE. if you cannot see that the whole "affair" is problematic with respect to WP:BLP I don't know what to say to you. But i would not mess around with arbcom discretionary sanctions if i were you. just be patient. WP is not the blogosphere. Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I never said it was the blogosphere, and I had half a mind to just revert the change. arbcom discretionary sanctions don't apply if there is no WP:BLP issue. I posted here for you to get a chance to explain the WP:BLP issue (as I take real WP:BLP issues very seriously). So far I have not heard a WP:BLP related objection. --Obsidi (talk ) 03:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a serious debate over including this matter on the Tyson page. Right? You may be on one side or the other of it, but you cannot deny that there is no consensus to include this matter in Wikipedia. Lacking that consensus, it doesn't come in yet, per WP:BLP, and you should not WP:COATRACK it in, in the federalist article. That is straight BLP policy. Again, there is no deadline here, as rabid as the blogosphere might be. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There is still a question of WP:WEIGHT about the entry into that article. But that is not a WP:BLP concern for entry into this article.--Obsidi (talk ) 03:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

if you check the RfC - which has not been closed yet - there are very clearly articulated issues under BLP. Just wait until the RfC closes, at least. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

professionalism

Jytdog, I take it from your deletion of the conversation you initiated on Gamaliel's user talk page, after I appropriately transferred it from Gamaliel's talk page to yours, that you do not have the courage of your convictions. You have repeatedly accused me of ignorance and violations of policy and guidelines, and impliedly threatened me with sanctions. Well, in the words of the cliche, "it's time to put up, or shut up." Please let me know if you would like to argue your point at ANI or the 3RR/Editwar noticeboard -- otherwise, please cease trying to provoke me, making unsubstantiated accusations about me, or generally behaving in uncivil manner towards me. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

i may well bring a 3RR or ANI case, but if i do it will be at my own judgement and in my own time; and if I do you will of course be notified, as that is obligatory. If you are "provoked" that is all on you; you are responsible for your actions and reactions. What I have said of your IDHT behavior and arguments/claims based on lack of understanding of policy/guidelines is supportable with diffs, and I have them, in case you have forgotten the times that I pointed those behaviors out to you in the flow of the discussions. (and no, i am not willing to produce them now and "argue" them with you; i am trying to engage with you as little as possible as I find it unpleasant) My advice, for what it is worth, is that you should be more careful and less aggressive, and try harder to engage in real dialogue rather than table-thumping, as dialogue is what produces WP:CONSENSUS - probably the most fundamental policy and process we have in WP. good luck! Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed every comment I have made in the last 36 hours, Jytdog, and not a single one of them is uncivil, discourteous, personally attacks another editor, or evidences anything approaching sanctionable on-wiki conduct. Your conduct, on the other hand, includes multiple instances of thinly veiled personal attacks, baiting, discourtesy, attempts at intimidation, false accusations of misconduct, and numerous attempts at provocation. As I said above, "it's time to put up, or shut up" regarding your accusations -- assuming you have the courage of your convictions. Otherwise, I would ask that you review your own BLP/N and article talk page comments over the last 30 hours; many of them are not pretty. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

i have made no claim at this time that you had behavior that was "uncivil, discourteous, personally attacks" and I don't know why you bring that up. Why do you? i have not thinly veiled anything; i've been quite direct and have asked you and others to make arguments based on policies/guidelines and to actually listen to and talk with other editors, so that the efforts to move toward consensus could make progress. and again, instead of talking with me, perhaps asking me a question or two, you are being all confrontational; there is no need for that. you are still not listening to my advice to slow down and have actual conversations (and of course you don't have to). You seem to be treating WP like a bloggy comment section where there is glee in the flame-war, or some adversarial legal context, neither of which have anything to do with WP's ethos or with how WP operates. Finally, as i wrote above, if i take action, it will be on my own time and at my own judgement. It is not a happy thing to call the house down on someone so that they are more strongly urged to change their behavior, and it is a big time commitment to do well. (i don't know why you are so anxious about that...your words otherwise express confidence that everything you have done is A-OK) I don't know what more there is to say on this matter; you are basically repeating yourself and you seem uninterested in actually talking with me. good luck. Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me um up your TLDR paragraph above -- only one of us has engaged in a "flame war": you. Only one of us has engaged in false/unsubstantiated accusations: you. Only one of us personalized a content dispute: you. And, bizarrely, you suggest I have no comprehension of Wikipedia's ethos or conventions? I respectfully suggest that you turn that powerful analytical lens of yours on your own conduct in the past 30 hours. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I have decided to remove your user talk page from my watch list. Please understand that my failure to respond further to your various accusations is not in any way an acceptance of their validity. It is simply an acknowledgment that this conversation has exhausted whatever useful purpose it may have had. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

so funny and lawyer-covering-his-butt-y! you just don't understand what we do here. i hope you learn. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a working compromise?

Jytdog, can you support the "alternative text" that begins "In the summer and fall of 2014, conservative websites and social media attacked Tyson's character . . ." In the discussion you seem to be arguing in its favor, while recognizing the concerns of everyone involved. Can you commit to it (or something very similar)? I think it strikes the right tone, reduces the controversy to its essential elements, and provides something like the minimum explanation and context for the reader to make sense of it. I think it also addresses the concerns of WEIGHT and UNDUE that appear to be the only remaining objections of any merit. Tough to argue that two sentences out of 55,000 bytes are somehow giving unfair attention to one controversy in the life of this man. If it can be properly place within an appropriate section of the article, the added content probably does not require one of those obnoxious "controversy" subheaders, either. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

yep i can support that - i wrote it! Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That's what I wanted to hear. I'm going to engage in a little jaw-jawing and see if I can rally some support for it. Your support for your own proposal certainly helps. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've been watching this from a distance, and I sure do hope that the two of you can come to agreement, because the two of you have been, separately, people I have edited with and found to be very sensible and likable, so it dismayed me to see you disagreeing with each other. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)