Jump to content

User talk:Ttguy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dave1g (talk | contribs) at 05:23, 7 April 2007 (Solar Sea Slug). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page. Leave me a message.

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.


You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.


You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 05:08, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

PS. Great job on Flapjack Octopus! I've updated it to bring it into alignment with the data on its family page, to move some informtion around, and to dd a taxonomy navigation/informtion box (taxobox). - UtherSRG 05:08, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for all the work you've been doing on GM related articles. I've been meaning to spend more time on them, but I tend to get stuck on less headache inducing subjects. If you need a hand with anything on the Wiki just let me know.--nixie 03:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind...

...checking Genetically modified organism to see if a date that was changed by User:38.116.192.13 is a legit edit? Here's the edit This IP has been on a vandalism spree, but it's a dynamic number issued to a college, so an occasional good edit sneaks in. Thanks. Joyous | Talk 14:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Joyous | Talk 15:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ecological effects

I removed the link since I merged that article into transgenic plants, it was a pretty terribly written essay, and there is need to have it forked from the transgenic plants article.--nixie 01:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Sequencing Costs

On Genetic Engineering someone guess that the human genome at 3billion base pairs and at 1/10c per base pair would cost $6 million to sequence. The maths appears to be wrong probably because when you sequence DNA you do both strands. So $3 million each strand is $6 million. But the whole maths is too simple. I dunno where the 1/10c figure comes from. You might get a company to supply DNA sequence at this cost. But does this take into account making your DNA libraries, putting the sequences together to make a genome map. Filling in the GAPs in the sequence? Does it take account of the need to have multiple passes of the genome to be sure you have accurate results. The cost of sequencing a genome is how much it costs to complete the project and I doubt it is 1/10c per base pair. I think this bit should be dropped from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttguy (talk • contribs) 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree; I assume you pinged me precisely because I expressed doubt about the numbers. But no need to check with me on this, just delete it with a comment saying "see talk", cut and paste the relevant passage to talk, and explain you rationale. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism! thru consistent removal of opposing arguments and scientific study results

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked. Sorry...yet on a review...you have been just editing in one narrow area in which you consistently remove material that doesnt fit with your point of view. You should take better care to add material that supports your point of view, yet not blank and remove material that contradicts it. You have been flagged as a possible member of an industry lobby group...and you have caused harm to articles by interfering in others' presentations...you have added some good edits, and have been a valuable addition to the discussion pages of the topics you edit, yet your blanking behaviors have been deemed partisan, and you should take your disagreements to the talk pages instead of just removing others' work...as well your blanking behaviors have caused harm to your positions and the industries you support...it seems u have the education to make valuable contributions to wikipedia in the botanical area...please expand your focus beyond mere defenses of the big agro industry...there are many plant articles that could use scientific review and addition of the latest material, that have nothing to do with GE tech or herbicide/pesticide issues...as well there are articles outside the sphere of botany that you may be able to contribute to such as those pertaining to australia, or such as cultural or other issues...in addition to maintaining your focus on the pages you have previously expressed interest in...(and as a side note...i am actually pro-GE tech...yet not in its current manifestation...your blanking behaviors are one example of why i am currently content with continuing blockage of the big-agro industries infiltrations into certain worldwide markets. The removal and blanking of criticisms and negative stories, whether on wikipedia or other formats, hampers our ability to reform and improve the GE tech and big agro industries in their (toddler) very early planetary stages)...Benjiwolf 10:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking behavior of this user

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia.

I dont really have time to go thru all ur edits...yet here are some examples...you removed a question over glyphosate toxicity with a link...you removed a canadian court case about GM pollen blowing into a farmers land with a link...you have removed countless links to scinetific studies, court cases, and opposing points of view...you began to edit away concerns about weeds acquiring the genes, instead of just removing the word "superweed" you removed the entire sentence (which is a valid word anyways that is used in the literature)...to sum it up tho...you inserted..."Unnecessary delays in farmers using GE tech poses a risk"...this last statement its very controversial...many people would argue the exact opposite...that introducing GE tech to their lands is a major risk...they may become totally dependent on the sellers of these techs...they may now actually be using more chemicals on their land...or the plants even manufacture the toxics themselves...then these plant genes that manufacture poisons drift into all healthy populations of the plants and all farmers have to deal with this...they even get sued for it by the company making the technology, in a bid to drive the farmers that dont purchase their products out of business so they can grab all market share...these are companies that work on one principle only...(grab as much money and market share as possible...anyway you can)...if they were just engineering the plants to have more vitamins, GE tech wouldnt be an issue...the fact is the major GE tech is "roundup ready" types of tech...specifically designed in combination with a company's top selling herbicide in mind so the chemical herbicide keeps selling...people can even spray more of it on their land...in fact vast powerful blocs of countries totally ban or severely limit this technology as it stands now specifically as they consider it a major risk...which it is...this could be wonderful technology...yet unfortunately it isnt, as of those that currently control and distribute it...(those that have caused the loss of 1/3 of US topsoil the last 50 years and driven most farmers totally out of business...sure we had some increased yields, particularly at first when the "bugs" hadnt seen our tricks yet, yet then the soil quality took a plummet and couldnt naturally support the crops...millions of ag workers were dosed with toxic chemicals not thoroughly tested...and yes...people had cheaper food...yet u get what u pay for...cheaper is questionable tho...as massive subsidies went into this new ag tech...and farmers had massive new costs to chemical concerns that typically even account for up to half their expenses...and anyways there has always been enough food for this planet...too much of it...it gets tossed in the trash...its a distribution issue, a geopolitical/economic issue, a land use issue and an eating habit issue...not a production issue...anyways the new ag techs didnt really help the farmers...it mainly just drove most out of business...and they liked being farmers...yet their farm products just decreased in value while they had massive new costs...it was a race they couldnt win...they were hit from both sides...more costs...falling prices...slight yield increases couldnt make up for that...the only way was to form huge cooperatives or buy up all the land & farms...milk the land for every drop it had...and we ended up with some type of huge factory farm situation basically the mirror image of soviet era cooperatives...fewer and fewer "mega-farms" and more and more destroyed soil...just driven that way thru capitalism...and pure capitalism can work for some things...it just didnt work especially well in this tho...and you cant blame the farmers...just the nature of the farm system they were in...and its not some conspiracy...it wasnt planned...people didnt realize the nature of the new ag system and the effect of the chemicals way back then...they just figured it out in the 70s or so when the science improved...by then it was too late...there was a massive entrenched industry...and whether it benefitted the consumer is questionable...they gave out massive government subsidies that disguised the true cost of the food...they payed for it in taxes instead of at the market...the food quality declined...and massive amounts of toxic chemicals entered their food chain and habitat...with the effect of even acute lethal poisonings all the way down to more cancers, diseases, and compromised immune & reproductive systems)...anyways...it wouldnt be much of a risk if it wasnt for that...(those that control the GE tech)...some are worse or better than others...yet there would always be some risk no matter who controlled it or how it was set up...it would likely be well worth the risk though if it was in the right hands...anyways...all you could have said was "some consider a delay in using GE technology to have negative consequences for these claimed reasons"...there is no consensus at all on that...all you can say is "some"...anyways...you only edit in this one area and seem to be part of a lobby...you have been flagged by a wikipedia user for a narrow editing focus and blanking of others arguments to possibly further an industry position...people can make up their own minds as to whether ur an industry lobbiest...and im not going to block you...i hope you keep editing...and its interesting to watch what u do...and as i said you have many good edits in addition to your questionable ones...it was just a warning...and a flagging...i try and only give one warning on wikipedia...so its always "final"...and as i said...i think there is incredible potential for GE tech...it will be able to do incredible amazing things...we just have to clean up the industry first...anyways after reading a touch more of ur contribs before finishing this, i see you have "poisoned" some articles...its worse than i first thought...some of the articles u have blanked and then rewritten to suit your position are getting flagged as not NPOV...u can insert ur positions...yet u have engaged in too much blanking of other positions...yet...good day...129.132.239.8 14:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking, censoring, and not adhering to NPOV

Please do not remove information from Wikipedia. We would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not censored and this applies to material you may believe to be contentious. Thank you.Benjiwolf 16:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent issues

Hi, from looking over the issue, I can't really see where you are in the wrong. Perhaps you should point him in the direction of this and this. He seems to have taken a rather strong position on you cleaning up the crap that gets dumped in the GM articles, and appears to be making baseless threats, you might want to report it here if he continues. --Peta 01:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism on polar bear page

...that seemed deliberate vandalism just to be a nuisance...there was the name of a book and date...with further information and specifics in the references section lower in the article...it was deliberate vandalism...and i am assuming bad faith...as you are just ticked i asked u on ur talk page why u just edited in the GE sections...there are levels above this warning that ultimately lead to an administrator getting involved and formally blocking you...i hope u refrain from just intentionally causing damage to wikipedia in an edit war...i am glad to see u have branched out to other pages...yet please refrain from deliberate vandalism...perhaps u may have had a scientific reason to question something...or perhaps u dont believe in evolution...that is ur right...please include ur references and ur information...instead of just blanking or removing that of others...polar bears do indeed exhibit many of the attributes of a terrestrial mammal even though we in the scientific community typically classify them as "marine mammals"...in the evolution section of the polar bear page this has a right to be discussed and explained...perhaps my rendering was not the most eloquent...yet english was always my worst subject and i apologize...i do wish to rephrase that little paragraph some...i feel perhaps i was somehow promoting a veterinary book in the way i phrased that...yet as i was questioned on my discussing the terrestrial aspects of the polar bear in the evolution section...i felt i needed to back up with a strong source that the polar bear is indeed referred to as terrestrial and has aspects of a land mammal...anyways...good day...merci viel mal...gracias...tusen takk...tschuuss...Benjiwolf 14:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: i would consider reducing the warning i gave if u stated a better reasoning for ur deletion...the reason u stated in the edit summary made this look like deliberate spiteful vandalism...perhaps it was a misunderstanding...or u had some other better reason...adä...

u dont seem to understand evolution

for a phd in biology i am surprised...u seem like a great guy...yet as to ur professional qualifications i am sceptical...species dont magically change from one form to the next...it is a very slow process...and two different similar species generally retain the majority of characteristics of their near relatives...every species is constantly changing...some have evolved so well to a certain niche that they maintain generally the same form...the new forms they evolve either find an additional niche and become a new species or sub species...or else cant compete well enough for additional niches and disappear...and as well the possibility exists that a species splits into a second or third that fills its same niche yet is distinct enough for us to classify it as a different species...it is arbitrary designations we have chosen to classify one to the next...such as if they can still breed with oneanother...and still there is no universal agreement on classification schemes even at higher levels such as kingdom even...(just like everyone doesnt even agree to how many continents are on this planet)...(our human made distinctions are somewhat arbitrary)..in fact all the animals or plants in the particular natural population have some variation between themselves typically...(unless its GM food crops or something ya)...and few animals in the population may eventually exhibit enough of a difference we deem distinct enough to say "ah ha..new species"...(somewhat arbitrarily to suit our human made classification schemes)...everything is always in an intermediate form...and even all healthy populations of a particular species typically have some variation...if we could take a camera, of say the bears ancestors millions of years ago and constantly filmed them till now...sped up the frames so we could see it in a timely fashion in an hour or so...we would see a constantly changing picture...from a small little ball of fur to the various giants we see today...the designations of one form to the next is somewhat arbitrary...anyways as to land mammal or marine mammal...thats not exactly a scientific classification anyways...we classify mammals thru other variables that show their true relatedness as best we can...i myself put on that page that the bears were marine mammals and not land mammals...i was trying to explain in the evolution section why i did this...the polar bear spends the majority of its time on land and ice in the air...it is not like an otter always floating or something...it is most comfortable on land & solid surface...its form is not perfected for the ocean like a cetaceans...its a good swimmer though when its needs to...yet as it is dependent on the sea for its food and is an apex predator in the marine food web we classify it many times as "marine mammal"...without the ocean the bear would disappear...without the land the bear would disappear...it is dependent on both...its current intermediate form, of those many slightly different forms we generalize as and that we now designate "polar bear", (after some of the brown bears supposedly slowly adapted to the far arctic), has evolved to a form that is "intermediate" between terrestrial and aquatic...the polar bear will always be in an intermediate form, whether it adapts fully to the ocean or retreats back to land, or two of these or all three... yet if going to the two opposites land and sea at which point it would no longer be intermediate between land and sea...we may not call them "polar bears" anymore at some arbitrary designation yet they still will have stemmed from, and will be in some sense,... "polar bears"...even if they turn rainbow colored and start flying...anyways...in captivity in a zoo we can maintain the bears in a pen with just land...yet we cant maintain the polar bear in a pen that is just water...and i think i am fully justified in saying it is a very interesting study of how a mammal adapts to fully aquatic life...in the Ursus genus it is the one that has taken steps like the cetacea did so long ago to adapt heavily to aquatic life...i think a study of the polar bear could tell us much as to how the cetacea did that so long ago...and some in the polar bear population are better adapted to the ocean than others...even within the polar bear population there are several "intermediate forms"...some have better swimming ability, body shape for the ocean...etc...several various slight metabolic and morphological attributes that make them slightly better adpated to the seas than their fellows...some might not quite be able to swim 60 miles...some maybe a little further...and some surely like swimming better than others...and there are other animals that make good studies for this of course as to how a mammal makes the transition to becoming fully aquatic...then comparing all these mammals in various stages of adaption to the seas could give us a better rough idea of how the cetaceans did that...anyways... good day...ur new criticism as to my previous explanation on the polar bear page being "drivel" and thats why u removed it is somewhat better i suppose...i will lighten my previous warning...ill take ur stop sign away...and after looking over this...i really think evolution is best seen and explained with micro-organisms or very short lived higher plants and animals...as they have such short life span and one generation to the next...its much easier to grasp and actually see in ur own lifetime...130.60.149.195 11:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

glyphosate page

if the new version of the pesticide journal gets taken out its accidental while in restoring other things that were referenced...i agree fully the latest addition should be included...i will pay attention to see it remains when i next edit that page...Benjiwolf 11:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think i mentioned on the glyphosate talk page...greenpeace is just as reliable a source as monsanto...i can include greenpeace statements on glyphosate just as i have myself included monsanto statements...everything there is referenced already...and i would not have included them if they were outlandish statements...their document on glyphosate was very cautious...anyways the green peace documents do not themselves need a reference, they are a registered well known international agency...

This is ludicrous - Greenpeace don't need to reference any statement they make because they are a "well known international agency". What a crock. They may very well be able to make unreferenced statements but that does not mean anyone on the Wiki needs to believe them. If they make unfreferenced statements then their statements can not be considered fact and used as such on the Wiki. The best that can be done with such statements is say that "greenpeace believes XYZ". Ttguy 06:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

they do in fact have scientific references in their documents though

As I mentioned before they do not supply a document that can be indepedantly verified so this is not a reliable source. Ttguy 06:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...that doesnt even matter though.. i can even use newspapers...i could use their documents from the public domain on the internet even if they didnt themselves have references...your requirements that they employ a specific style of referencing in their own documents holds no water

...wikipedia is not a technical journal where every sentence needs a reference (yet i may do this on pages subject to lobbying from people like you)

On the contrary - Wikipedia:Citing_sources says that "material that is, or is likely to be, challenged" must cite Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. The Wikipedia:Verifiability policy requires sources to be cited.Ttguy 06:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the documents wikipedia refers to do not need this style, and wikipedias standards do not require its references to do this either...(you can use newspapers for instance)...any wikipedia editor can include references such as newspaper articles that arnt themselves referenced in this particular style of scientific technical referencing system

You can put such references in. But all they mean is that the journalist of some newspaper holds some opinon. Checkout Wikipedia:NPOV which tells you that you should state facts or facts about opinions. This means that if you can't supply a reference to back up a claim made by greenpeace then you don't have a fact. All you can do is state the fact that greenpeace has such and such an opinion and provide a citation which shows that they do have that opinion. "we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions." Wikipedia:NPOV Ttguy 06:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...the green peace documents go further than a newspaper and include several references to books/scientific documents/journals and other things...if i was writing a technical scientific book i might employ such a referencing method as this, where not only do i use references, yet each sentence must state specifically where its facts came from, & while i may use a system like this for a heavily disputed wikipedia page with two opposing lobbys, the documents that are referenced to themselves do not need this particular style of referencing system...in fact i can even just reference to a book that itself has only a couple of referencings at its end...anyways...i can refer to a newspaper article on a wikipedia page that has itself no references...if you wish to dispute material on wikipedia that has been referenced to a newspaper or recognized international agency or book...then your going to have to provide material with your own references from newspapers/agencies/journals/books etc. that can refute the referenced material...even then you couldnt remove the first referenced material taken from a newspaper unless u had several reliable sources stating it incorrect...i can put up a bbc document that says one thing...u can put up a washington post that say the opposite...u would need several more sources before being able to remove my bbc document as incorrect, at first u could only put in your document...

this is a copout on your part...you cannot yourself find material and references to add so you are just trying to remove other material you happen to not like from just one side of the issue

"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material."Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
So the responsibility lies with you to find a source my friend.

...and you wish to take up other peoples time

...while you can provide a good service in removing outlandish statements on the GM pages and pestcide pages i have been witnessing you going beyond this and that has made wikipedia less reliable and accurate and balanced on some pages...if you wish to further dispute someone being able to add a greenpeace document as a reference we will take it up with an administrator as to whether greenpeace documents are not allowed to be used as references...Benjiwolf 09:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiwolf - please have a look at WP:CITE#Tagging unsourced material - which states
To summarize the use of in line tags for unsourced or poorly sourced material:
If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the [citation needed] tag to ask for source verification, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time.
If it is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it is as very harmful or absurd, in which case it shouldn't be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense.
I am in the process of waiting for a "reasonable time" to get proper sources for the claims in this article.
Note also on this page it states that is is wiki policy that "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor."
Also note that this page states "All citations require a detailed full citation.". So your assertion that Wiki articles do not require citations is false.
Please also read Wikipedia:Verifiability

ur going to have to add ur own material ttguy

i have added several things...they are all backed with references...ur going to have to start digging for ur own...and ur going to have to read thru carolines reserch review...i added some more monsanto links and statementy too...yet i consider it mainly ur responsibility to start adding their stuff...Benjiwolf 14:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: you need to start taking ur concerns over material to the talk pages or im going to have to bring in an administrator...you need to give other researchers time to address your concerns and add even more references...~& blanking of referenced material is not acceptable, and u should allow a couple days with a "fact" tag so something not (in ur opinion) properly referenced...this is my policy on this page...in fact there are many action groups all over the US concerned with roundup products...i gave one example...i will begin to add many more...stop trying to hide the facts and add ur own...Benjiwolf 14:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Benjiwolf, I have been adding facts and you delete them. I am not going to go into an edit war with you. But I am going to have you banned from the Wiki for disruptive editing.
For example what is your justification for deleting this section? which has citations and is NPOV.
In California doctors report illnesses potentially related to pesticides to the Californian Envionmental Protection Agencies Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program. Statistics from this program indicate that Glyphosate related incidents are one of the highest reported [1]. The Californian EPA however point out that when assessing the toxicity of pesticides call volumne is not a good measure since it does not take into account the number of people exposed and the severity of symptoms assocated with each incident [2]. Of the 515 pesticide related hospitalizations recorded by the program over a 13 year period, none are attributed to glyhposate [3]. In the 40 years to 1988 Cholinesterase inhibitors and methyl bromide were most often involved in the more serious occupational systemic pesticide poisonings [4].
and replacing it with "[glyphosate] is the third most likely pesticide/herbicide formulation to cause incidents." which is POV, misrepresents the situation and cites no sources.
Further - What was your justifiction for deltingin Limegreens glyphostate edits? [1]. You must edit with NPOV.

i actually re added in the new material limegreen added immediately...his attempted breakup of the article was what i reverted and then i added his new material in the following edit...and i can site you for repeatedly removing referenced material Ttguy...if i have removed any fresh material you inserted it was purely accidental in reverting ur blanking of referenced material...you have been deliberately removing referneced material...i am perfectly willing to head to an adminstartor ttguy..you have with consciousness only been removing material harmful to monsanto...i have added several links to monsanto...added material pro-monsanto and also linked and added material doubtful of this product...i have added a very wide variety of referneces to this page including several farm news pages...you have been editing one sidely...and disruptively i might add...you need to start taking ur blankings to the talk pages first from now on...everything i add to this page i have several references for even...not just one...so...get real...Benjiwolf 14:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anyways i think ur a decent guy

and i think we need to solve our differences over this page...if u move to a slightly more neutral position i am willing to adjust some wording here and there...yet this is my proposal: ...any new material you add i will not remove (i never remove new material you add anyways intentionally)...if u add referenced material i want it to stay usually...even if it doesnt have an immediate reference i usually just put a "fact" tag on it for a day or so to give u time to compile your sources...you need to begin the same policy...you cant continue blanking things...and this is why some things you add that are fresh may accidentally get removed as i just automatically revert ur blanking edits these days...i try and sort thru to find new things you may have added, yet sometimes they may get lost...anyways you have strengthened the page in some respects: as now i have compiled a large amount of referenced material and also found carolines page (which is quite excellent) to back up that sides statements...as to removing the california pesticide poisoning thing...that issue is in the article as it stands, and today i even found another source that stated in one year glyphosate was only 8th on the list so altered the wording to show that, and i have referneces to that statement...your gripe is a minor one and if you want to pile on references showing that glyphosate has a poisoning issue in california go ahead, if you want to start talking about pesticide poisonings from 1948-1988 im not sure what i think, yet my initial thoughts are its kind of off topic and better for another page...yet if u want to show some other chemical was the major one up to this point go ahead...i dont really care...Benjiwolf 14:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and the fact of the page is this

there are two sides...monsanto and their own studies...and then a poorly funded opposition...and by the way i dont exactly consider the united states EPA exactly neutral on this either...yet i cite them anyways and include their stuff...this is an american product and US standards also are well known as being low since the 80s and reagan took over...they are better than countries in abject poverty, yet compared to a developed region such as europe they are low...anyways this particular product is one of the least of the chemicals of my concern, yet after editing the page i see that even products like this that are on the low end of toxicity (according to monsanto and such) have some severe issues...like the studies are all done by the manufacturer, and even then agencies like the american EPA find test results are sabotaged and falsified...or else then subtley engineered such as studying only glyphosate toxicity and not the toxicity of their product in total...yet i have told you go ahead Ttguy and add all ur monsanto studies...i summed them all up quite well i think "monsanto states its products are not harmful to anyone or anything"...what was it..."our product is safer than table salt"...yet i leave it to you to start piling on their material...i have added some...and you have just been deleting the other positions material instead of digging into the monsanto archives...anyways i wish u and ur two daughters well...yet id advise them, in absolute sincerity and good faith, to stay away from the farm fields of australia and only to drink filtered water if ur editing is any indication of how the australian authorities handle these issues...i myself have no desire to head to australia, and would keep my daughter far away from there...yet new zealand maybe, as they have a totally different approach to stuff like this from what i understand...the real questions about issue like this and the future studies should begin to look at the average chemical soup people are exposed to and see what the lab results are on that...a few ppms of this and that and the other thing add up to a much larger combined ppm of toxic industry byproduct affecting our bodies and those of our daughters...the ppm effect of one of these products tells me little about what the true effect of all this stuff taken together is, yet seems to hint that it could be pretty bad...Benjiwolf 15:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glyphosate - neutrality tag

Dear Ttguy, I have reinstated the neutrality tag, that tag is certainly in its place on that article, having observed the article for several weeks, and your discussion with user:Benjiwolf. I would like to ask you to leave the tag until a not-involved editor removes the tag. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I have looked a bit further now. I see Benjiwolf has been blocked for sockuppetry (though the block is not at all noted on the userpages). Still I think it is best that someone outside of these edits has a look at the neutrality tag, there has been to much going on on these pages, there does seem to be controversy on that subject (Benjiwolf was blocked for the sock, not for the contents of the edits, I do not have the knowledge to value them). Can you agree with that view? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think the page as it stands is NPOV. It provides two points of view for the chemical glyphosate. For example where it used to say "glyphosate creates the most cases of toxic exposure in california" it now points out what the data acutally shows - the most incidents reported - but also points out the severity of these incidents is very low. So now it is NPOV but in the past it has been very POV.
The issue with Benjiwolf was not over NPOV but over uncited sources for claims - violation of WP:CITE. He could not cite reputable sources for the claims he made. Rather he would either provide no citations or cite a web site put out by the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides - not exactly a neutral source. As I understand it web pages a sources for Wiki articles are not regarded as the ideal source.
As to your comment that the large part of the talk page is devoted to NPOV - I beg to differ. The talk page is talking about sources for statements. If a user - preferably not an anoymous one - (and by the way the anyonmyous user that added the neutrality tag was infact Benjiwolf in defiance of his ban) - can point out in a new section on the talk page where the article deviates from NPOV then we have a point to start with for fixing the page. As it stands there are no specific claims about where the POV is off so it is not possible to fix it.
So unless you are prepared to put a section on the talk page stating which sections violate NPOV I think the neutrality tag should go.
Lets take further discussion to Talk:Glyphosate
Ttguy 06:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will answer here, since I can only see the pure chemical side of the article, and it is too much for me to look through the whole discussion (when I really started noticing it the discussion was well under way) where I don't even know much about the subject. I will not contest the removal of that tag, but in this specific case, I am sorry, I am contesting the removal by you, you were one of the parties involved in the edit warring (which is almost 2/3 of the whole page-history). The tag was added by an uninvolved IP, all I can express in this case is that we can suspect that IP to be the same person as Benjiwolf, but, as yet, we cannot be sure.
Outsider question: was Benjiwolf attempting to add a third POV to the article?
I have filed a RfC, I think that if there are no comments on the talkpage within a couple of days (5 since the original addition?) the tag could be removed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Benjiwolf is almost certainly back as 83.79.168.184 contributions of 83.79.168.184 .
in this [2] edit on Talk 3AMethylenedioxymethamphetamine 83.79.168.184 takes over one part of a conversation previously being conducted by Benjiwolf. It is very obvious from the style that 83.79.168.184 is Benjiwolf. A dialog was started by Benjiwolf, an answer given by another user and then 83.79.168.184 answers back as if he/she is carrying on the conversation. So no, the tag was not added by an uninvolved IP but a blatant sockpuppet.
And no Benjiwolf was not adding a third point of view to the article. Just unsubstantiated claims from a very one sided point of view.
But I am happy to leave the tag on the page for a few days and see if anyone can really make any points about POV. What do you think about the POV tone of the article? You don't really have to know about the subjet too much to make a judgment about the POV tone.Ttguy 12:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see later on if I can find some time to do some work on the article, or look further (I am at work at the moment). Someone has replied to the RfC, and a non-involved editor is working on the article at the moment, we'll see what comes out of it. Hope the situation settles now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a response to the "prison colony PHD"

It will block switzerland completely!!! Do it! I've already got the University in Zurich blocked and the public library blocked! Block the entire country!!! Wikipedia is dominated by a gang of american editors, punk aussies seem to feel the need to gang up with them, go ahead block switzerland! Now do you see why we in switzerland block Aussies from working here Ttguy??? We make it tough for em! And I concur with the rules on Aussies in swissieland after dealing with Ttguy! I say we tax their wages more if they get to work here somehow too! They are clearly a threat to the order of switzerland, they can easily get out of hand! To balance the danger of having aussies here we need to tax them more to provide for funds to deal with the trouble they might cause...anyways block the entire country of switzerland from editing on wikipedia! The swiss do contribute to english wikipedia actually, many are fluent enough to contribute effectively, only so many of course. But anyways I say why should we in switzerland contribute anymore to wikipedia? After seeing the FOX news editors gang up with the herbicide junkie I say we ditch the english speakers then and let them compile their own information, I am heading next to another country here in Europe to get the same thing accomplished...no more will we add to the body of knowledge of the english speakers if they insist on the being such brutes, and resorting to such low blow tactics in other editors with content dispute, it was nice to see Ttguy, nice to see all your maneuvers to block an editor so you can have free reign on the herbicide pages, its fitting you live on a former prison colony island! And now I know why the british sent their prisoners so far away, they just are so darn persistent they surely would have escaped if theyd kept them in britain...but I still like the Aussies of course, and have many aussie friends, sure Nicole kidman is cute and I like the mad max movies with Mel...yet its just interesting to see their prison colony background pan out in various ways! and you still have not answered which Uni your PCPHD is from!!!83.78.165.13 20:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Have you considered setting up an email address to use with your Wikipedia account? auburnpilot talk 04:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have turned this on now. :-) Ttguy 05:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great. You've got mail. - auburnpilot talk 06:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check user procedure

You recently compiled and listed a case at requests for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case, in accordance with the procedures listed in the table at the top of the requests for checkuser page. For an outcome to be achieved, we require that you provide these diffs as soon as possible. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. -- lucasbfr talk 13:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk.[reply]

I am not quite sure myself, I changed the letter to F. We will see how it goes :) -- lucasbfr talk 14:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiwolf

Hey I'm opening an arbitration case against Benjiwolf. I know you've run into him in the past, and I think it would be helpful if you could relate your thoughts and experiences to the committee. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#BenjiWolf. Thanks. /Blaxthos 06:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Sea Slug

Even if the surface area wasn't enough to power the animal indefinitely, wouldn't it still be advantageous? surely it would extend the length without food before dying. --Dave1g 05:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Goldstein DA et al An analysis of glyphosate data from the California Environmental Protection Agency Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 2002 40:885-92 [3]
  2. ^ California EPA 1996, California Pesticide Illness Serveillance Program Report HS-1733 [4]
  3. ^ California EPA 1996, California Pesticide Illness Serveillance Program Report HS-1733 [5]
  4. ^ Maddy KT et al Illness, injuries, and deaths from pesticide exposures in California 1949-1988, Rev Environ Contam Toxicol. 1990 114:57-123. [6]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ttguy&oldid=120910369"