User talk:David Tornheim

RETIRED

old talk

Welcome! Hello, David Tornheim! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Levine2112 discuss 02:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts Lennar Corporation Hi there, I have warned the user regarding this, if he/she continues I will report them to WP:AIV. Unexplained blanking of article content, especially entire sections constitutes vandalism. You did fine on my talk page, the only thing you didn't do was create a header for the subject. You do this by clicking the 'new section' tab (up at the top) and entering a subject, or you can put two equal signs on either side of the discussion topic and it will generate a header for you. The archive box on my talk page is for archiving outdated discussions that are no longer relevant. Rather than deleting the discussions most editors archive them for easy access, and so other editors can view old discussions without having to dig through the page history. I'll keep an eye out for the editor removing the controversy section, he gets one more warning then he can be reported. If you see them delete the section again feel free to revert, the WP:3RR rule does not apply to vandalism. Is there anything else I can help you with? Cheers, Landon1980 (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the help. I see they did it again, but maybe a separate person. Should we do Wikiscan? I haven't tried that yet. This is correct to reply here instead of your talk page?--David Tornheim (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC) It dosen't matter where you reply, but just make sure that the user knows that you replied to them on your talk page--leave a message on their talk page saying something like "I replied to your message on my talk page". Good day! the_ed17 01:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC) It's usual to reply on the poster's talk, unless you want to limit it to your own talk; if so, custom (as I've seen it) is to place a notice prominently on your talk saying "I'll reply here" & advise 'em to watch your talk. (Don't sweat how, unless you want an explanation....) Personally, I prefer to reply on usertalk so they'll know I've added, but it's your call. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks for all the help!!--David Tornheim (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, if they do it one more time they will be blocked from editing. If you see that same user make that edit again report them to WP:AIV, there is a level 4 warning on their talk page. Anytime a user vandalizes after a level 4 warning their blocked. IP's are not usually blocked indefinitely, but where this is a registered user they will most likely be blocked indefinitely for using a 'vandalism only' account. Have a good day, Landon1980 (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Indenting To indent something, just put it like this: :blah, blah, blah It will appear as so: blah, blah, blah To bullet/number something, it goes like this: *The Shannara series is written by Terry Brooks. </nowiki>The Shannara series is written by Terry Brooks. </nowiki> It will appear like this: The Shannara series is written by Terry Brooks. The Shannara series is written by Terry Brooks. (The bolding was for emphasis, by the way. =]) Hope that helped some! If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask. Cheers! the_ed17 01:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks for all the help!!--David Tornheim (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Anytime...and here's another thing. =) When you reply to someone else's comment, indent your reply, like I did just now to your comment--it just makes conversations a lot easier to follow. Two more quick thoughts: don't get frustrated if you are not doing stuff right...Rome wasn't built in a day, and you won't learn everything about Wikipedia anytime soon, if you even could. I've been here since March of 2006, (my first edit!) and I'm still learning a lot every day I am on here. Good day! the_ed17 20:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Also, here's something that isn't required, but can help other users out: When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature. Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. For the record, though, you are one of the most amicable newcomers I have ever met! Thanks you for that! the_ed17 20:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the further tips. Yeah, I knew about indenting, not immediately, but caught on--forgot about it for the outline. Sometimes it's unclear when it is best to indent. For example, on the "conspiracy thing", I was really really responding to just the most recent jab back & forth, I was responding to the ENTIRE DISCUSSION (that to me seemed to be leading nowhere in a hurry) and I was hoping to draw attention to the bigger picture--that's why I didn't indent there and at another place. I was also aware of the revision comments section. Except in my first edit, I pretty much always use it when revising an ARTICLE, except for reverts of deleted sourced material (on Lennar). I haven't been doing it for the discussion page, since I'm just adding to an existing conversation, and it seems redundant--what else are people doing other than continuing the discussion. What's the protocol on that? Any guidelines on comments in the discussion section. I have experience with revisions from programming & understand the concept for being able to see the history of changes to a product or program, etc., but it doesn't exactly make sense to have a revision history of a conversation--instead, I would think you just watch the conversation which is basically sequential anyway, right?--David Tornheim (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC) [Actually I submitted this an hour or so ago, along with the continuation of the next topic...] Just put 'reply' or 'reply to ____' in the edit summary box...it helps others who happen to wonder what x person did...I dunno, its not a huge deal when on discussion pages. the_ed17 01:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC) It's useful for those watching an article talkpage to know what you're commenting about, tho "reply" or "cmt" are often enough; I prefer to clip a bit of my comment & quote it in the summary, so if you're looking for a particular comment, you can search the page without having to read it all. It's a matter of choice (like so much on WP). Only thing not to do is leave it blank. And I don't know if there's a guideline on it, but when you start a new section, ideally, edit summary like this: "/* Indenting */ new section" (just leave off " & "). I think the system will do it for you (I've never opened a blank page & tried it), but in case it doesn't... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 05:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Respect For the record, though, you are one of the most amicable newcomers I have ever met! Thanks you for that! the_ed17 20:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the compliment. I've been doing political stuff for years and used to be as argumentative as so many people here and on newsgroups are and have been. I have learned how futile it is to argue like this (although it can be fun, I guess)--when someone is invested in another side emotionally, which is often the case in these heated discussions, bashing your opponent over the head with your superior facts is generally not going to work: they will not want to feel beaten & humiliated, so they will simply do the same back, even if they have inferior facts. It's a matter of pride. The more aggressive or condescending you are, the more they will dig in their heals and fight fire with fire. Instead, if you really want the other side to listen, you have to start with respect, listening, and striving for common ground, and seeing the other side as an equal. In fact, if you see them as not the ENEMY, but a potential supporter of your viewpoint, you'll have a much better chance of convincing them. If you think they are an idiot and other condescending things about them, they'll pick up on that FIRST and FOREMOST and instinctively want to fight and disagree with you, even when they know you are right and no matter how solid your position. (As a good example, I met this one guy and he would come at people like a steamroller or tank, aggressively arguing his position. When I first met him, he did the same for me, implying I was totally wrong to think certain things. Unfortunately, he didn't know that either I didn't know or didn't think any of those things he seemed to be attributing to me, and I ALREADY agreed with his position before I met him. But because he was so nasty in his style of argumentation and towards me and those the disagreed with, I instinctively felt the need to defend the people I disagreed with and then disagree with the position he was taking, despite the fact that I originally agreed with it before he opened his mouth. What he really wanted was to argue, not to convince me. He had a chip on his shoulder. Fortunately, I didn't take the bait. I steered clear of his negative energy.) Back to the people being attacked--they'll simply hear the negativity you feel about them and vigorously insist you have no right to say such negative things, or think so badly of them and they'll throw in everything but the kitchen sink to protect their dignity and defend facts they know are sketchy--the argument on the surface appears to be about facts, but in reality, the desire to have one's opinions and viewpoints respected and heard is really what's going on. And both sides vigorously insist their viewpoint is not being heard for any number of reasons. On the other hand, when the person you disagree with has room to be mistaken gracefully, and the person doing the convincing does not thereby claim victory and say "See I was right; he's an idiot", if their acceptance of the contrary view is safe and they will not lose face by agreeing, then you will have a chance to bring them to your point of view. If agreeing with your opponent invites further ridicule and harsh treatment, they simply are probably not going to concede if they have any pride. It becomes more a game than an investigation into the truth. And last, and most important: My experience with politics is that you really waste your time, if you expend all your energy arguing with those who disagree with you, because as I said before, those who strongly disagree are unlikely to change their position, no matter what the issue and no matter how much energy you put into trying to convince them. Probably the best you'll get is that they will understand WHY you think what you think, may even be able to cogently make your argument to someone else, but will continue to disagree with you, but hopefully will leave with more respect for you than you started--that's probably your best case. It is also as big a waste of time to try to convince those who don't care about the subject at all. When you say to them, "You SHOULD CARE MORE about the environment", (or, say, Pearl Harbor), for example, they will immediately get defensive, just like the person who disagrees with you about whether drilling for oil in Alaska will have a negative impact on the environment. The person who does not care will resent your trying to drag them into a discussion about something they are not interested in, and will shut down, disagree to be annoying, pretend to be listening, nod their head in agreement when they actually disagree, etc. Either way, you are wasting your time and theirs, they are not listening and likely no substance is going to get in, they don't care. If they had any viewpoint on the subject before, it will be unchanged by whatever you said, which will be like the noise of a fly they would prefer to swat. If anything they will think, "People arguing for X are really annoying and pushy--I'm not sure I want to be associated with people arguing for X; they're jerks." Basically, they too feel disrespected for your trying to convince them of something they don't want to be convinced about; so you lose their respect as well. If you want their respect, which again is the most important, you let them continue not to care, go on their merry way and worry about whatever they do care about. If they later start listening, and this often happens when they get bored with whatever stuff is happening their lives and they see how excited you get about what you are doing, they start showing interest and asking questions, THEN you talk about that subject, but until then, you let them not care, and accept that, just like accepting those who disagree. It can be hard to bite your tongue when that's what you really want to talk about. In the meantime, maybe you can find another subject that both you and he or she DO want to talk about. You'll have a much better chance on the subject that does interest them. So in politics, to make something happen, instead of arguing ad nauseum with those who vehemently disagree or don't care, you first energize those who DO agree with you and support you. They are easy to convince--they are instinctively on your side anyway. Next, you convince those who are on the fence and have not made a decision, but are open to listening (unlike the people who don't care). They are going to listen to you AND to the other side, then come to a decision. If you're being mean to those who disagree, you're going to lose respect in their eyes and they may listen more attentively to the other side. If you are respectful, then they are more likely to think you are confident enough in your position to not get so defensive. And if you can accept that other people have different opinions (and even argue them WITHOUT resentment), they're also more likely to listen to you: They'll think, hey that person is reasonable and level-headed, not narrow-minded with an inflexible and emotionally invested based agenda; that person looked at ALL THE EVIDENCE and then came to a conclusion--they are not biased and have blinders on. That's my 2 cents... --David Tornheim (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Nice novel! Fun to read. I'll try to reply in depth later, I have to go for now. the_ed17 01:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Ever think of being a crisis negotiator? (That's my in-depth reply =]) Wow. the_ed17 02:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Glad you liked it. I put a lot of work into revising it, probably spent 2 hours on that. But I think it was worth it, even if you are the only one read it. I wrote something similar to an activist a few weeks ago, having put just as much work into it (don't know how much she actually read). I probably should have just cut and pasted that and revised accordingly. Of course, when I started, I had no idea I was going to say so much. Happens a lot to me. Sometimes drives me crazy... I'm saving this one, maybe I'll make a book out of essays like this... --David Tornheim (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC) That would be a good idea...I think that many people would buy something like that! (like, um, crisis negotiators.... =]) Don't forget the section above too.the_ed17 02:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC) After reading your [User:David Tornheim|user page]], I agree that, no, you are not neutral on some subjects. On the flip side, who is? People can be completely biased and still want a neutral article, right? Ugh. Disgusting, how people can just attack someone else because they think that they know them, and "know" what they are going to do. the_ed17 23:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Outlining Two minor things. New topics start at the bottom, & use a new header, like so: ==Outlining== which gives you the effect you see, & the "edit" link for the section. You missed the bottom of the page here & left off the header, so I moved & added (which is within guidelines if somebody goofs; just be sure you put it back in...) If you want to get tricky you can add * to get more indent, indent indent indent or use # indent If you want to get really fancy, you can [[User talk:Trekphiler|hide out]]... Cheers. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks for all the help!!--David Tornheim (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Misusing Vandalism Warnings Hi, I am an administrator. You just left me a vandalism warning [1] for an edit I made to Lennar Corporation in a good faith effort to improve the article. Wikipedia has an assume good faith policy. Attempts to improve an article, even if misguided, are not vandalism. You need to immediately stop misusing vandalism warnings in editorial disputes. Instead, discuss concerns with other editors and then go to dispute resolution, if needed. Jehochman Talk 21:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Conspiracy? I've no problem with it, but it will need sourcing (& I don't have access to paper copies of the said reports, or I'd do it), so it's going to get promptly taken out again. I can only suggest, if it bugs you a lot, post a complaint on the PHAND talk page. Trust me, there are people with access to the docs who will address the issue. If not, try here; you might be surprised, & I know there are serious, interested people that will see it there, & act on it, if they realize there are uninformed people getting lost in the crossfire of esoterica. Hope that helps. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 04:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC) TIND See this essay on deadlines. If you have a concern about the article, you can start a request for comments on the get more editors involved, or you could try third opinion. Happy editing. Jehochman Talk 20:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC) I can't disagree with that. It takes as long as it takes. Best you can do is watch the page, hope there are people as interested as you (& there probably are, check the talk page), & if it doesn't move at all, message the talk of somebody who's posted to the talk often. Or who created the page (click "page history" on the article page) & ask for comment. Give it at least a couple of weeks on a contentious issue with lo traffic on the talk page. (Something like PHAND, you'll tend to see it in a couple of days, 'cause it attracts a lot of attention; this has gone weeks with only 3 of us seeming to notice it, & that was after a msg to the WP Autos talk page.) You could also try a msg to the project talk page. (The article will fall under a project; follow the link, & beware posting on the project page instead of the project talk, 'cause it's all to easy to do. I learned the hard way. ;) ) And yeah, sometimes the application seems a little capricious. All I can say is, don't let it bug you too much, 'cause there really isn't much you can do about it. Post the messages, prod people if you can, & above all, keep your temper, 'cause frustration will only bite you when it comes to getting results. (That's the hardest thing for me.) Hope it's some help. I'll have a look at the page, too. I gotta tell you, I don't see the beef, either. I'd say both sites are outside NPOV (neither is neutral on it), but beyond that, you got me beat. Might ask here for more info. Calling it vandalism was over the top; bad call, maybe, but clearly not bad faith. And you overreacted in the tone of your edit summary; all caps is SHOUTING. (Yeh, there's all kinds of wikiquette to learn...) Better to post a comment to the talk page with detailed concerns or questions, & your reasons for including, reverting, re-adding, whatever, after it's taken out, especially when you're getting somebody citing guidelines. That's obviously somebody who knows his way around. And when it comes to what's OK for EL sources, I'm not the best one to ask, 'cause I took out ELs & had the original poster complain about it & win. I thought I understood the standards... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 20:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC) I moved our discussion to the talk page of the Lennar article, and replied to your last post there. Landon1980 (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Day code: style section "what's the best way to add emphasis?" Not having read it, I can't say if this addresses it. I find it's more a matter of personal taste. I prefer bolding ('cause I find ital doesn't show up well on my monitor), but I've gotten ragged a bit for it; some wikipeople consider it shouting. It's really your call; you're not gonna get warned off for much past a lot of ALL CAPS, which is over the top, especially in edit summaries. (Why that's treated diff, I'm not really sure, but it is; deal with it. ;) ) Oh, & style questions like that, really, are better posted to a usertalk page, rather than an article page, since they don't deal with the article content/format. (Unless you mean emphasis within the article...) No, that's not a rule, just a convention, a bit like the diff between a party line & a private one. Hope this helps. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 04:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC) SF Emergency Drill Simulates WMD Attack Check it out! I was on TV! http://cbs5.com/video/?id=37954@kpix.dayport.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN-HlDoUMyY BillyTFried (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC) No comment? Do you think I came off like a wise ass calling them "Heros"? BillyTFried (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Terrence Park School Hi there. You might consider keeping the title the way it is. "High Schools" are pretty much protected against deletion like garlic stops vampires, whereas "Elementary Schools" are pretty much assured of being deleted or merged pronto. Calling it "School" may well work okay now that it's through the New Articles gauntlet (I "patrolled" it through last night) as long as you emphasize that it included grade 9-12 kids at some point in its history. If you want to write about the elementary school, you'll need to either do that on the school district's page or on the regular Terrence Park School page, because, like I say, elementary school pages are slated for quick annihilation about 99% of the time... To change the name of the page, just click the MOVE THIS PAGE link and follow the easy instructions. Thanks for adding the stuff and welcome to Wikipedia! Don't hesitate to drop me a line on my talk page if you ever have any questions about this or that. The page WP:OUTCOMES might be useful reading helping to get you up to speed. It looks like you had problems with a photograph on that page also. Can I help with that? Carrite (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Oh, crap, I see you've been here since 2008. My bad. Nevertheless, my mailbox is open if you ever have a question or a problem. Carrite (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your response. Yeah, I've been on Wikipedia since 2008, but I have done almost no editing for 2-3 years. So I've forgotten some of the key things I learned when I was active. I'm a pretty focused person and very interested in specific topics, like that school (and now as an extension Terrace Park history, partly because I lived there), so many of the specific things that are common on Wikipedia I might not know. As I state in my main page, I never claim to be 100% objective, try to be fair and balanced. I only recently found out about the demolition plans, and that's why I thought it valuable for people to know about the school and what has and is happening to it. I have always considered it a historically significant building worthy of a wiki page, but had not until now been interested enough to actually put up a page on it. Now that it is about to be lost, the Wiki page will be one of the few things that explains it as it was before it was partially destroyed. I'll keep in mind your suggestions about the name. As to the picture, I would indeed like help with that. My friend took the pictures so that we could show what the building looks like for educational purposes and sent the authorization for that, but the bot killed it and I didn't understand what I need to do to keep the bot from killing it. I have asked him to give me the GPLv3 or Wiki Commons authorization, but he has been too busy to respond and may not understand what it means to do so--it's pretty complicated even for me who now sort of understands it. I noticed user Dianna responded about the picture. I'll look into that and see if that helps. Also, I had some problems with material I added on the Terrace Park, Ohio page. Some user Nyquist deleted the information I added about Native Americans, saying it had no reliable sources while retaining material about Europeans based on the same sources! In fact the Native American stuff was better documented. I think that shows bias, and I undid it, but Nyquist went and deleted it again. I just put up a post explaining my thoughts on what has been done. If you know how best to deal with this, I welcome your advise. David Tornheim (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC). David Tornheim (talk) Terrace Park I don't know why Nyttend is acting this way, frankly they seem to have decided they own the article. It's a disgrace and I have warned them to stop, however I must warn you as well that edit warring is not tolerated on Wikipedia and could lead to this account being blocked. Nyttend has become a somewhat problematic administrator and as you know has been extremely pushy before at this same article, but edit warring is not going to change any of that. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC) How long to wait before calling in other admins to do dispute resolution? David Tornheim (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Well, despite what dealing with a user like Nyttend might lead you to believe, admins have no special authority in a content dispute. Since he is apparently unwilling to discuss these matters I would suggest that now is as good a time as any to seek WP:DR. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the advise and the assistance in this. I'm about to take a break today on the Nytend issue--maybe tomorrow. I left you a long note about the images regarding the school. Since writing it, I found more images on Flickr and am soliciting permission from those people too. David Tornheim (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC) GMO stuff Hi David. I watch Groupuscule's Talk page, and I have seen what you are writing there. What they haven't told you, is that after she challenged the language about the scientific consensus on GMOs, we held what is called a "request for comment" (RfC) to get the community to weigh in, on whether the language was appropriate or not. The community did weigh in, and the clear consensus was that the language and sourcing is good. Before you go much further, I recommend that you read about RfCs here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment so that you understand what they are, and how they are used. Please also see the RfC on this question, which you can read here: Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies/Archive_6#Request_for_comment_on_.22broad_scientific_consensus.22. The thing you are questioning has been discussed many, many, many times on the Talk pages of the relevant articles. No new science has been published since the RfC that would provide any basis for overturning the RfC. The scientific consensus remains the same. (please note that scientific consensus is not the same as unanimity. And please also note that the statement of the scientific consensus in the article is if written carefully and precisely. Some people don't read it carefully, and think it is saying more than it is. Happy to discuss further, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC) (note - corrections made per markup Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC))(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) Hi Jytdog: Thanks for your response. I have looked at the RfC and will continue to look at other Wikipedia articles, cited articles, research and sources. I disagree with the claim "No new science has been published since the RfC that would provide any basis for overturning the RfC." Firstly, there was and is no scientific consensus as is claimed. There may have been a majority of respondents to the RfC that believed that was the case, especially given the widespread dissemination by pro-GMO advocates starting with quotes by Pamela Ronald and promulgated by groups with ties to industry like the Genetic Literacy Project, which have carefully cherry-picked quotes to make it look like there is a consensus when there is not. (I don't deny cherry-picking by those with concerns about GMO's, and I have seen widespread distribution of at least one study on rats getting cancer, which was not good science.) I have 2-3 articles, published a year AFTER the RfC was closed that carefully examine the quotes of leading science organizations and regulatory agencies provided by the GMO proponents. Those articles show how misleading and unrepresentative many of these quotes are and all of the qualifications that come with them. I looked for the quotes myself in the source documents provided by the GMO proponents and found the exact same misrepresentations and cherry-picking described. Secondly, because the GMO products are heavily studied and published, how can you be sure nothing published lately could possibly be relevant to any claims of a consensus? Are you an expert in the field and paid to keep up on all the journals? The three articles I am referring to that dispute the "scientific consensus" claim are here: Short Summary article Full Article mentioned above in PDF Another short article That is all for now. I am considering moving this discussion to the talk page and/or pointing to it from there. David Tornheim (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks for talking with me. I'll respond in points: Your first two sources are the same; the first is just an excerpt of the second. That you refer to the set as "three" articles is a bad sign. If you intend to go forward with this, and you continue to say things that are as blatantly untrue as that, your efforts are going to go no where. (I am not accusing you of lying or anything - my guess is that you don't understand how Wikipedia works nor how we handle evidence here). Moving to the two sources themselves - the first is an advocacy piece, published in an advocacy journal; the second is by the very well known anti-GMO advocate Claire Robinson, again published on an advocacy website. Neither of those are the kind of independent, reliable sources that we look for, especially in controversial articles. (You will find tons and tons of writings by Robinson and her colleague Jeremy Lantham on anti-GMO websites. The two of them work out of a small nonprofit in Ithaca NY and they have launched many small organizations and publications to put their views out there - they are very clear dissenters from the scientific consensus) You ask me how I know that no science has been published since then that overturns the scientific consensus. Answers: If new studies had been done that actually overturn the scientific consensus, this would be HUGE news - there would be reports about them on the front page of the New York Times and every major media outlet. I watch the GM articles in WP, and nobody has brought any sources describing new science that even pretends to overturn the consensus i read some of the scientific literature (including general ones like Science and Nature, which report on major findings in all fields), and have seen nothing myself. Moving to higher level stuff. You write: "there was and is no scientific consensus as is claimed." I understand that you believe that to be true. However, the description of the scientific consensus in our articles is supported by an enormous pile of sources that are very, very solid. The sources and statement went through an RfC and withstood it. You will see that Groupuscule presented their list of objections during that RfC and others did not find groupuscule's arguments to be persuasive. If you are going to challenge the content and sourcing, you are going to have bring new and very strong sources. As I said, such sources don't exist as far as i know, and you have not brought any in this discussion. Lastly, and this may be the most important thing. You start out writing "I disagree with the claim "No new science has been published since the RfC that would provide any basis for overturning the RfC." and you appear to begin making arguments to support that claim (the next sentence starts. "Firstly....") Please review what you wrote above. In all that text, you did not present a single - not one - piece of evidence that new science has been published since the RfC that overturns the scientific consensus. If you disagree with a statement of fact, you need to actually bring evidence. Again, if you decide to actually start trying to change the content of WP articles you are going to need actual evidence presented in very very good sources. Let me say finally, that the scientific consensus on this issue may one day change. Science is continually moving forward, and new things are figured out that change how we view things. It happens. Someone, or some agency, may do the kind of very good experimentation that shows a) some previously unknown mechanism by which currently marketed GM food could harm some people (right now, the biggest hole in the arguments of people opposed to, or concerned about, GM food, is that there is no known mechanism by which currently marketed GM food could be harming people due to the genetic modification); b) that exposure to currently marketed GM food is actually harmful over the long term. For example, there is a group in Europe that is basically doing the long-term Seralini experiments again, but trying to do them right this time so that valid conclusions can be drawn from them. The group is called "Grace" and here is their website: http://www.grace-fp7.eu/ I'm interested to see what they produce. and in both cases, (a or b), the work is described in reliable, relevant, secondary sources as being valid science that changes the consensus. Looking forward to your response. Jytdog (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC) oh, by the way, the actual source for your first reference is here. The brief text there makes reference to "portraying GMO critics as akin to climate change deniers, out of step with science." I don't know if you have read the Keith Kloor article that is being referred to there, but I encourage you to read it. It is here. Jytdog (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) Jytdog: You start out by saying, "Your first two sources are the same; the first is just an excerpt of the second. That you refer to the set as 'three' articles is a bad sign." I am well aware they are the same. If you look more closely at what I wrote, I said "2-3" articles! And in my list I clearly show that one was just a summary of the other--I provide both to give the reader the option of reading something short or something longer. Honestly, I am not that stupid and am not playing any games as you accuse me of here. Your accusation is a bad sign. LOL. I looked at the Keith Kloor article you mentioned. I'm not sure why you wanted me to read it. It has many of the oft-repeated arguments the pro-GMO people typically make, including a claim that is untrue: "people should know that GMOs are tightly regulated." That of course, is not the case in the U.S., where unlike many counties (such as the EU and I believe China, Japan and Australia), no additional testing of GMO's was ever required, because of the policy of "substantial equivalence" (I believe Canada uses a similar standard), despite objections by scientists within the FDA that GMO products should require additional study and testing. Kloor ridicules the rat study for good reason--it was a bad study. That's one study. That doesn't invalidate every study that was every done that has demonstrated unique problems and concerns with *particular* GMO products. The Monarch Butterfly study published in Nature talking about the negative impact of GMO Bt-corn was good science, despite claims I have read that it was not. Further study was made of the negative effects of Bt-corn on caterpillars and toxicity issues were duplicated in the further study as you can read on the USDA Q&A about this. The USDA Q&A starts out by saying it is not a *current* problem, but from reading other answers that it *was* a problem that was unique to this GMO product discovered *after* release and hence that variety of Bt-corn has been phased out...I will continue comment on the article later...David Tornheim (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC) I really mean what I wrote about "three sources" thing. If you come to the actual Talk page talking about "three" (and you say "three" at times) you will be treated as either ignorant or someone who lies. I wrote that, trying to help you. You can do with that, as you will. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) You say that GMOs are not tightly regulated in the US. That is not true and you have presented no basis for saying that. Many anti-GMO people think that the scientific examination conducted with regard to the effect of GM food on health as part of the regulatory process is very different in the US and EU; this is not true. What is true, is that the EU has been much more cautious with regard to environmental consequences of GM crops. See here for one explanation of that. The butterfly matter you write about is also about the environment. The scientific consensus statement you have an issue with, is limited to health. There are a lot of strong emotions about GMOs; one of the things we run into frequently is that people don't read carefully. If you decide to come to the Talk page to challenge the scientific consensus statement, I would appreciate it if you be very clear about what exactly you are seeking to change, and to be very clear about the grounds on which you are seeking to change it. Doing so, would save a lot of drama. So far it looks like you are misreading our article, as you are talking about this environmental stuff which has nothing to do with the scientific consensus statement. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) 2, not 3: Ok, thanks for the warning that I should be careful not to say "3" even if I list the other summary link (perhaps putting it on the same line would be the better way to go). Kloor article: Yes, I am well aware the RfC statement does not talk about affects on animals or the environment, and I never intended the Monarch Butterfly studies to be a challenge to that. I was responding to the Kloor article you asked me to read. I mentioned the Monarch Butterfly study for two reasons: (1) I saw it wrongly dismissed by a GMO proponent as "bad science" here, when it should not have been dismissed, even though I agree with Parrott here and Kloor the rat study was "bad science" and "bad statistics". (2) Although it is true, the RfC statement does not talk about animals or the environment, GMO proponents, including the author of the article you asked me to read, often quote Pamela Ronald to justify a consensus statement, using this quote that is in the article: "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops." Obviously untrue. Since her position and quote *does* make the claim to extend to the environment, I'm showing you the flaws in this article and similar incorrect claims made by GMO proponents distorting the science and the facts. I had the impression you asked me to read it because you thought it was a sound article. Do we can agree it is biased and inaccurate for numerous reasons? I have two more things to say about it later. Incidentally, it sounds like the reputation of Ms. Ronald has been challenged and I believe 1 or 2 of her published works have been retracted: See this article that came up when I Googled her. On US vs. EU regulation: "You say that GMOs are not tightly regulated in the US. That is not true and you have presented no basis for saying that. Many anti-GMO people think that the scientific examination conducted with regard to the effect of GM food on health as part of the regulatory process is very different in the US and EU; this is not true." Huh? The article you provided me to prove your point says exactly the opposite of what you said, that the two are indeed quite different. It begins by saying the US has cozzied up with industry and loosened its regulations and the EU has done the opposite! Please give me a quote from the article confirming your claims.David Tornheim (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Glad we are on the same page with regard to "three". There is no need to bring both - people who work on the GM articles are scientifically literate. With regard to the rest... I am starting to think that you don't understand how WP works. We read the relevant literature and summarize it. That is how we generate content here. The overwhelming consensus expressed in the literature is that currently marketed foods from GM sources are as safe as food from conventional sources. We don't cite the Kloor article as a source for the consensus statement - I pointed you to it only because that article was specifically cited as a motivation by the people who produced one of the sources you brought, so you would have that context in case you didn't. I am 'disgusted that you bring upI object to your bringing up Ronald's retraction as though that says something about her scientific reputation. She discovered that her lab had used bad reagents; she disclosed that, and she retracted her paper. That is how science is supposed to work when things go wrong. See here and here and here. I am done talking with you. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC) (striking "disgusting" comment. Not helpful. My apologies. Jytdog (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)) If you strike the statements about Ronald I will be happy to continue to talk to you further. (and by the way, "Independent Science News" is a product of Claire Robinson and Jeremy Lantham, whom I mentioned above. It is not "independent", it is a vehicle for their anti-GMO views and they hit below the belt, all the time.) You appear to be charging full steam into things that you don't know much about. If you don't move more carefully, this is going to be much uglier than it needs to be - it doesn't have to be ugly at all. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) To be fair, he may not have known that retractions in science are not admissions or implications of foul play, and (given how many papers are never retracted despite being known to be wrong) are often interpreted as a sign of integrity. David: FWIW, I also think the final sentence of the above comment here could be interpreted poorly. The idea, I think, is that repeating the same path that was followed before will probably lead to either a large amount of stressful argumentation that goes nowhere, or editors considering your comments unproductive and ceasing to respond as a result. Sunrise (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC) Hi Sunrise. Yes, I am well aware that retractions of science papers are rare. And I agree that it is more honorable to admit and take responsibility for one's mistake and to retract a paper that has serious problems than to leave it up to others to fight a difficult battle to force it. It's very similar to people who resign under pressure from political office (or have big press conferences for damage control when they have been caught doing something the public would not approve of) and agreements in lawsuits both civil and criminal where an admission of a mistake, wrongdoing or apology is part of the agreement and demanded by the other side to avoid further litigation. Even if it is the honorable thing to do and shows integrity, it does look to me like an admission that one has produced and/or engaged in shoddy work that should have been caught before publication. As was the case with the rat study, except that author did not retract the article--the journal did. I see no reason I should take the reference down to a well written article. Jytdog gives the unsupported allegation (just as much of an "ad hominem" I would say) that the authors of the article have an agenda, as if Ronald does not. I agree Jydog's last statement has the sound of a veiled threat and intimidation. My interpretation in this context was that the evil monsters who wrote that article blemishing pro-GMO "hero" Ronald will be viciously attacked, showed to be the evil charlatans that they must be, and rid from the face of the earth for questioning Ronald's integrity. How dare they! LOL. Obviously, I couldn't possibly know what I am talking about if I share their dastardly work and I too should see a similar fate of infinite obscurity for taking anything they say seriously or worse letting others know about it. Anyway, if Jytdog wants to impugn the integrity of the authors of that article, that's fine by me. I'm all ears to valid criticism. I'm not affiliated to them and won't feel any "ugly" sting from finding out how absolutely horrible these seemingly innocent and "nice" people really are. LOL. To be honest, I noticed Jytdog's ire concurrently to my response: On US vs. EU regulation: "You say that GMOs are not tightly regulated in the US. That is not true and you have presented no basis for saying that. Many anti-GMO people think that the scientific examination conducted with regard to the effect of GM food on health as part of the regulatory process is very different in the US and EU; this is not true." Huh? The article you provided me to prove your point says exactly the opposite of what you said, that the two are indeed quite different. It begins by saying the US has cozzied up with industry and loosened its regulations and the EU has done the opposite! Please give me a quote from the article confirming your claims. I am thinking Jytdog saw that I called the bluff, that the article did not support the claim that the US and EU have similar GMO standards. Rather than admitting error (as noble GMO-"hero" Ronald did), Jtydog created a distraction, and used that as an excuse to dodge it, to use ad hominems on me "you don't know what you are talking about" (obviously I do, or Jytdog would not be so upset!), and throw in a little intimidation of things getting "ugly" to try and scare me off. Unfortunately, I don't fall for those tactics. Took too much Philosophy not to notice them immediately. Sorry  :-) Now let's carry on with civil discussion of the facts! Okay?David Tornheim (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC) we assume good faith here. Your post drips with sarcasm, and that is not what we do here. I came here originally to try to help you - to save you time. I have zero interest in "jousting" with you or anybody. I don't "bluff". I'll see you on the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) Sarcasm, really? Unbelievable! Sorry y'all lack humor. Humor is good for the soul. LOL. Yes, I assumed good faith until your statements started to go down hill as Sunrise also noticed. Hopefully, you will be more civil and avoid these tactics on the talk page.David Tornheim (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Sorry, but I'd rather not go through the rhetoric/social positioning process right now. :-) I'll just comment in response to the issue at hand that it's not at all similar to people who resign under pressure from political office - that is in fact the point I was making. Sunrise (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC) quick note. Sunrise, thanks for pointing out that my comment about things getting uglier than they need to be, being misconstrued. Your interpretation is along the lines of what I meant. It can be difficult to work on controversial content and we need high quality discussion based on good sources; ad hominem arguments based on poor sources are not productive, per the of-cited Graham's hierarchy. I also note that WP:BLP applies everywhere, including Talk pages. Its better on many levels just to not go there. David I did not mean that as any kind of threat and I am sorry if you took it that way. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) "We have successfully scrubbed the lede of GMO controversy article of all mention of scientists or academics who have concerns with GMOs. [2] [3], following Monsanto's PR campaign to "enlist academics in the G.M.O. lobbying war"." Where in the Genetically Engineered Fish and Seafood: Environmental Concerns report did you find a source for a claim that scientists tend to be more concerned about environmental impact than human health implications?Zebulin (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC) @Driftwoodzebulin: The report is not the best source for that claim, I agree with the editors on the talk page about that. My understanding is the biggest concern by scientists about this GMO fish raised for food is that it will find its way into open waters and because of its size will out-compete all the non-GMO salmon. This would be identified as an "environmental concern" rather than a food safety concern, and likely handled by the USDA or EPA rather than FDA for that reason. The problem with the source is I believe it is only about the GMO fish, not about all GMO food. The ecological concerns like this articulated by scientists in the RS come up all the time, and are found in our articles, so it should be in the lede. I hope you can see why I made the post that I did. This post would be better made at the controversy article, but I agreed not to edit there for 1 week, so I'm answering here where you asked me. Please don't quote what I said here at any GMO articles this before the week is over, but feel free to share any ideas and RS there if you do agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC) Warning It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Genetically modified food controversies. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. difs: 08:51, 13 February 2015 dif 08:54, 13 February 2015 dif 09:02, 13 February 2015 dif 09:08, 13 February 2015 dif Please stop canvassing. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC) As a canvassed party, whose response thus far has been only to supply information, and who furthermore watches the pages in question anyway, groupuscule must suggest that this "Warning" comes across as unnecessary and unduly threatening. David Tornheim posted on the pages of four users, all of whom are already deeply involved in the exact discussion at hand. On a related note: If the talk pages for articles about genetically engineered food weren't Archived so often, there might be better continuity of discussion on those pages, themselves, and the decentralized communication on people's talk pages might not seem as necessary. ☮ groupuscule (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC) I would be happy to discuss archiving on any of the relevant aticle's Talk pages. With regard to canvassing, it is a breach of WP's norms. None of the users who were canvassed have been involved in the articles for quite some time now; groupuscule's (you are really going third person now! :)) description of them as "deeply involved in the exact discussion at hand" has not been true for a long time now, and the canvassing is a clear effort to revive old disputes that were settled a long time ago by contacting people who argued for the kinds of changes that David wants to make now. My response carefully follows the recommendations in the guideline: "The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices, possibly using {{subst:Uw-canvass}} on their talk page. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard, which may result in their being blocked from editing. Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary." That is what I have done. And if David continues, I will take the next steps, as described in the guideline. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC) This dif is further canvassing, in my eyes. I am bringing you to ANI. You will receive a notice when I am done writing it up. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Reminder There's a certain unnamed bully who tends to be very uncivil and drives editors away from topics. You may or may not have run into him. Strangely, he's never been blocked, which shows that some editors are very good at manipulating and gaming the Wikipedia system to get what they want, mostly by kissing up to the right people and spreading false rumours about others they dislike. Unfortunately, you may have become the latest target of this bully. If this is true, then you must be very careful to be calm and civil in your replies, because this bully will attempt to game the system to get you blocked. Take care. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC) hmmm] Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC) although with the spooky conspiratorial tone, this is more appropriate. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC) about your note on gandy's page It is strange that you are disappointed that no one walked you through the history. Nobody gets a personal escort through WP. I read the rest of what you wrote, and again, it was strange. I have no idea who you are and it is none of my business - thinking about who you are is profoundly against the spirt of Wikipedia - we assume good faith about one another as a baseline and we focus on the work we do together. And I don't care what you think of me. Please stop thinking about me. I don't want to read about your speculations about what motivates me or doesn't motivate me, and you shouldn't write it Really. We don't go there in WP. If you haven't actually read WP:AGF please do. Think about all the drama on the GMOC talk page about substantial equivalence - as you wrote on Gandy's page, that was driven by your distrust of me (which has no place here). I will also add, that the drama was driven by your ignorance with regard to the subject matter. (ignorance is not bad - i have oceans of it, and try to learn more every day) Making strong statements based on ignorance is kind of bad, however. Anyway, once you finally read the sources and let them speak to you, the issue went away. Which is great, and was a relief to me. And the article ended up with better sourcing. We could have gotten there much quicker and more pleasantly had you not wasted time being suspicious of me, and had just thought about the content, and what reliable sources say about it, before you started making strong claims. But we got there. I am happy to reboot our working relationship. Please just deal with the content and the sources. Once you do, you will find that the articles are mostly accurate and NPOV, per reliable sources. They have been tested by fire, many many times. (they are not perfect and they can never be finished; nothing in WP ever is) But there is a lot of misinformation out there about GMOs and a lot of unreliable sources; please think carefully about the sources you bring. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) Additional note - about BP. Your effort to throw my own words at me is really glib and ugly - you don't know the story. if you had read the history of the BP article (which would take you another week at least), you would have seen that once I was able to push back the real ick that was going on there (and it was icky and is not what I do) you would have seen that Petra in particular started to push way way too far the other way and as I tried to hold the middle, she started to demonize me so much, that it got so ugly that I just walked away. That all happened before the March against Monsanto article, where she tried to do the same thing, in the same way, and then came after me again on the GMO stuff. It was really dark and ugly. I believe she has burned out and mostly left the project now. I feel bad for her; carrying that kind of hateful poison around, hurts you. As for me, I aim for the reasonable, messy middle, always. I just try to make the articles I work on, as well sourced and NPOV as I can. But that is all a big fucking waste of time; I just responded because your effort to throw my words at me - done in ignorance of the whole story - was icky. Please just concentrate on the work. And please work carefully; be on reasonably firm ground when you make claims, and be ready to hear that you are missing information. You will find that is how i behave here. Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) Thank you for your response. I have many thoughts on all of the things you wrote above and spent two hours working on this response. However, I don't want to spend a lot of text explaining myself and where I feel misunderstood, so I cut much of it down. I want to focus on some points of agreement, forward movement and explain one place where we disagree. (1) "I am happy to reboot our working relationship." Good! Let's keep it positive! (2) I read the [[WP:AGF]. It's good policy. It seems to me you were the first to start accusing me of not having "good faith". You snapped at me first, using harsh language and ad hominems. It was clear to me at that point you did not think I had "good faith". Let's please go back to (1) and not start accusing either of the "good faith" thing unless it is truly warranted. Accusations tend to cause distrust, lack of harmony. It is mentioned in WP:AGF and I agree. (3) I did not expect an escort. I wanted to avoid stepping on well-known landmines and reigniting old disputes and people forming battle lines and get caught in the cross-fire or relegated to one side. This is a constant problem on Wikipedia. I have seen in on many pages. I don't know how to fix it--but I am aware of it. (4) "Please just concentrate on the work." Yes, let's do that. However, if there is corporate malfeasance going on in regards to Wikipedia on ANY article, it should be addressed. If you can point me to a place where these problems are addressed, it would be much appreciated. (5) I did not "use your words against you". Please assume the "good faith" you say I lack. Your words prove you are a stand up person and are interested in Wikipedia not being subverted by corporate malfeasance. That is good! That is why my distrust from the list I wrote was changed into trust. Trust is good. Let's build trust. Now we may agree there is a problem with corporate PR people, but it appears you strongly disagree with Gandydancer and others about HOW to address it. I honestly don't know what is best--I'm all ears on that subject. It is a somewhat tangential issue from the NPOV but may be a problem and a number of people have said they think it is a problem. Wikipedia's policies of anonymity make it quite difficult to ascertain, unfortunately. Doc James noted that. And I saw that you helped him identify "sock-puppets". Again good work. This builds more trust. (6) I can see you have strong emotions about this, especially the sentence where you said, "fucking waste of time". I know you don't believe that or you would have left just as Petra did. I think you have a short fuse now and that's something you'll have to work on. I can see there are relationships that have developed and many strong unhealthy negative distrustful emotions have come into this. I hope we can repair the burned bridges. I don't want you to project these problems on to me and assume I am going to behave similarly as those who you have had problems with you in the past on GMO's or MAM. My goal again is to avoid repeating past mistakes. (7) "Think about all the drama on the GMOC talk page about substantial equivalence - as you wrote on Gandy's page, that was driven by your distrust of me (which has no place here)." No. No. No. That was not because of distrust. You are not assuming "good faith" by saying that. Please look again at the talk page of GMOC. Both of us focused on content, not trust. There was no "drama" there that I detected. The drama was on my talk page and you started it, when you got all pissy that I posted the article that was negative on Pamela Ronald (whose page is anything but "objective" and I believe the sources violate numerous RS rules. Of course, the Pro-GMO would never care about that, right?). I honestly was quite shocked at how upset you got and that certainly damaged the "good faith" assumption. Anyway, I made the edit on the "Substantial Evidence" to see what would happen. Because I truly believed that statement was incorrect. I would not have done that if you had been better at explaining it on my talk page and had not stormed off, saying, "I'm done talking to you." That would have looked terrible if you did that on the talk page, right?! If you look at where I challenged your claims about the "substantial equivalence" ON MY TALK PAGE, you didn't response about where in the article it said it was UNIVERSAL. I noted that the article clearly said the US has been shifted by corporate lobbying more so that the EU, and it was at that time you had gotten mad and stopped talking, instead of just showing me the content that proved your point as you did on the GMOC talk page in a mature way. I hope our work on the GMOC talk pages is *that* productive in the future! (8) I would appreciate it if you read the first section of my user page written (it's shorter than this response) when I first joined Wikipedia about NPOV, bias, objectivity, etc. I think it applies as much today about my concerns on the GMO pages as it did about other subjects I had seen with controversy. Maybe that wasn't so abbreviated. LOL!!  :-) Yours truly,David Tornheim (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks for your remarks. I will see you on the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)(striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) Conflict of interest in WP OK, you keep referring to corporate interests working to pervert WP and the like, and above you asked me to tell you about how "corporate malfeasance" is addressed here. I work a lot in this area - this is something that is very important to me and I spent a significant chunk of my time on Wikipedia dealing with it. So I can tell you about it. This is quite long, for which I apologize, but I want to give you an intro and then a careful description. pre-intro... before I do, I want to say something again. While I understand your concern about corporate corruption of WP and share it, your approach to this issue is wrong. We do not begin by distrusting anybody, and we do not write boatloads about how we feel about other editors in Wikipedia. You will understand that better ( I hope) after reading the following. Intro: The whole complex of policies and ideas about anonymity and outing is very important to this project. We assume good faith and we do not try to WP:OUT anybody. Let me put this in bold - if you try to out another editor, you will be banned. Wikipedia takes anonymity very very seriously. Editors who have been publicly identified have been threatened with physical violence, hounded, and otherwise fucked with both professionally and personally, by crazy and bad people. I know editors to whom this happened. The Outing policy is strictly enforced, and very important to how this place operates. Related to that -- deep in the guts of Wikipedia - part of the beautiful and well-thought-out heart of this place - is the notion that we are all equals, working respectfully side by side, looking at and focused on creating and improving article content according to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, and behaving according to WP's behavioral policies, guidelines, and norms. WP is all about content, not contributors; it doesn't matter who you are in the real world - Randy from Boise or a nobel laureate. We don't know who you are in the real world, and we don't care. What matters is the content you create and how you conduct yourself. It is beautiful. If we have problems with the behavior of another editor - if another editor's behavior leads us to pull our eyes from content and direct them at another editor - we address that directly and respectfully with the other editor on his or her Talk page, and if that fails, we take it to one of the boards and let the community handle the matter. It should never get personal here. This place falls away from its ideal and becomes really ugly when editors turn their eyes from article content and start looking at and discussing one another's good or bad intentions, or start talking about how qualified they are and how we should accept their contributions based on their authority instead of what reliable sources say. These are all typical newbie mistakes. When you combine those newbie mistake with some passion... you can see that things get even uglier, faster. I hope you reflect on that, and incorporate that into the way you operate here. OK, intro is over. The key documents regarding "corporate malfeasance" are WP:NOT (specifically WP:PROMO), WP:NPOV, WP:COI, and WP:ADVOCACY. You should notice right away, that NOT is pillar and policy, NPOV is policy, COI is a guideline, not a policy, and ADVOCACY is just an essay, not a guideline and not a policy. ("policy", "guideline", and "essay" are technical terms in WP) I'll discuss these in there order of centrality to the heart of WP and community consensus about them. WP:NOT is a pillar and a policy. This is all about the mission - what we are doing here, defined largely by what we are not. This document is really important to orient editors to our mission, which is to crowdsource a free and reliable source of information that captures the sum of human knowledge. Beautiful. But people arrive here who don't get that, and try to make WP into all kinds of things it is not, and some abuse it (sometimes not understanding that what they are doing wrong, sometimes knowingly). One of the most common abuses, is using wikipedia to promote some thing, organization, person, cause, or idea. Promotional editing is profoundly un-Wikipedian (pillar) and is against policy, be it done by a company or someone committed to opposing a company's activities. NPOV is policy, because everybody agrees that NPOV content is absolutely central to Wikipedia's mission. Everybody agrees on that. Also, NPOV is something that you can discuss objectively - editors can find sources, discuss them and (try to) come to agreement on what they say, and what ideas in them are central and should get the most WEIGHT, and which are more peripheral and should get less WEIGHT. It is about content, and is based on publicly available information. I want to note here, that there is a noticeboard for NPOV issues, WP:NPOVN. That board is pretty much defunct, which is unfortunate. We can have a separate discussion about why that is, but issues about POV are most often addressed at ANI. COI is only a guideline. There have been many many MANY efforts to raise COI to policy but those efforts have never succeeded, primarily because any given editor's conflict of interest is personal - it is about contributor, not content. Do you see how issues about COI immediately come into conflict with our policies about anonymity and outing, that I described above? (that is a real question - if you don't understand that, the rest of this will make no sense to you). Those who oppose raising it to policy, make the very good points that: a) it is about contributor, not content; b) the information that would make it clear if someone has a COI is private, and getting it would involve violating OUTING; c) what matters at the end of the day is whether the content is NPOV and well sourced - if someone adds that for pay or as a volunteer, doesn't matter; d) we already have the NPOV policy and if editors add biased content, we already deal with them under that policy. we don't need a COI policy e) ADVOCACY is as big, if not a much bigger, problem (but see note below) and all this fuss about COI does nothing to deal with advocacy; f) (less good point) those who are obsessed with COI are most often anti-corporate advocates themselves, trying to shove their bias down everyone else's throats. Those who want to elevate COI to policy, make the very good points that: a) every responsible organization has a COI policy, and WP as a widely used repository of information, has a special responsibility to manage COI of our editors, to earn and retain the public's trust; b) editors with a COI cannot help but be biased - it takes superhumans to write truly NPOV content with a COI, and we cannot give them free rein: c) WP is a volunteer project and everybody has limited real time and real jobs, and there is an endless supply of COI editors and we cannot keep up with them: (i) companies have money to pay people to push biased content into WP: (ii) there are tons of freelancers looking to get paid for editing WP; (iii) there are companies that exist as brokers between companies and freelancers - their whole business model is pushing biased content into WP; d) (weak argument) Wikipedia has legal liability under advertising laws to disclose any content that is actually a paid advertisement, and if we cannot get COI disclosed we cannot comply. e) (weak argument) it is actually in the interest of conflicted editors to have controls; most often they end up embarrassing themselves and their clients or employers ADVOCACY is just an essay and is really an adjunct to WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. Advocacy is more focused on the editor's behavior (and passion underlying biased editing, rather than financial interests underlying biased editing), while NPOV focuses on content, and COI is about the editor him- or-herself. Looking at someone's behavior, it is often hard to sort out if the bias they are adding is due to COI or passion. The result is the same, though - biased content. It is important to know that the community distinguishes between COI (something essential to the editor) and Advocacy (behavior of the editor generally, but especially concerned with passion-driven bias), and NPOV (content). The essay WP:TENDENTIOUS is useful for identifying editors who have a pattern of advocacy behavior. (It really is useful - you should check it out. And I invite you to apply that checklist to me. I check myself against it.) I have argued for raising COI to policy. I also want to note, that with regard to the interesting question of what perverts WP more - bias due to financial or other conflict of interest, or bias due to passion (say someone who is ardent practictioner of yoga wants to add glow-y content to an article about the health-benefits of yoga; or a fan of a football team adding glowy content about that team and adding negative content to other teams; or a vegetarian adding loads of content to the Meat article about how evil meat and the livestock industry are... etc etc you see what I mean)... with regard to which damages Wikipedia more - there is actually no data on that. Nobody knows. It is clear to me, that both are big problems. Anyway, within the realm of COI, there are 2 broad classes of "conflict", in the way Wikipedia considers the issues: What we call "paid editing", which is (as it sounds) editing for pay. You might be freelancer, or a PR agent, or an employee of a company or a university... but if you are getting paid to edit WP to promote something, you are a "paid editor" (I note that there is a class of paid editors that are different and are not considered to have a conflict of interest- see WP:GLAM for example) Other COI editing - maybe you are suing someone and want to add negative content about them, or maybe you are an academic who thinks you are great and wants the world to know that through WP, etc etc. (as I mentioned above and as WP:ADVOCACY explicitly discussed, it is often impossible to figure out if someone has this second kind of COI especially, or is editing from passion - they are closely related) There are lots of famous examples of Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia - there is even an article about it. One of the most recent and painful examples, was a nest of sockpuppets that was uncovered in 2012 - see Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia. This was driven by one of the "broker" companies I mentioned above, so the issue was paid editing. Literally hundreds of sock accounts; huge huge effort by volunteers to uncover them all, close them down, and reverse the damage they did. This led to another massive effort to get a policy to explicitly ban "paid editing" in Wikipedia - there were no less than 5 competing proposals running at the same time. Huge turmoil. None of them succeeded. After the WP-en community failed to come to agreement on how to manage this problem, the WMF (our parent) took over and did two things. It sent Wiki-PR a cease-and-desist letter regarding use of the WP name, and claimed (very weakly) that Wiki-PR itself violated our Terms of Use. They subsequently amended the Terms of Use (which it, as the owner of this site, issues) to make it obligatory for paid editors to clearly disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" and to follow project policies and guidelines with regard to conflict of interest. You will see the results of their actions in the WP:COI guideline, in the first section. It is important to note that the WMF did 'not ban paid editing. This made the wing of the community that wanted to ban it, very unhappy. But per the WMF, paid editors can be part of the community, if they disclose their COI and follow the COI guideline (namely, if they don't directly articles (outside of making purely factual, uncontroversial (broadly defined) changes) and instead suggest content on the relevant Talk page). It is also important to note that the WMF left the anonymity and outing policies of WP intact. The change to the Terms of Use is not a license to hound or OUT anyone. Anyway, WP:COI describes very clearly, what a COI is, what someone with a COI should do, and how to handle concerns any editor may have, with another editor's possible COI - for the latter, see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest. It follows the general principles I mentioned above about how we handle it, if we ever have a concern with another editor's behavior. Raise the issue directly and politely with the editor-of-concern on their Talk page, and if you are not able to resolve your concerns, take it to the relevant noticeboard, which in this case is WP:COIN. Do not hound, do not pound it on it relentlessly on the talk page, do not make it personal, and do not attempt to OUT the person. Let the community handle it. I do a lot of work responding to notices posted at COIN. I think it is an important issue. You can learn more on your own about all this and the various perspectives voiced by the community, by carefully reading WP:COI and its talk page and their archives, as well as the archived failed discussions about creating a policy banning paid editing, that are linked in the "further reading" section at the bottom of the Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia article (which I put there) there you go. Happy to discuss any part of that or answer any questions you may have. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) Wow!! Thank you so much for a very interesting read and much good information! I had no idea! I will do the reading you recommended. I started working on response last night, but the power went out, so I might get back to you later on some of my initial reaction, and also some of the confusion I have long had, which I think is a problem for other new and even experienced users as well. I'm really happy you have such strong feelings on this matter and you have such a strong commitment to addressing these problems. I agree with nearly every thing you say in one way or another, and understand the potential corruption from "passion" or Ideology or Cultural myopia (such as Patriotism or Nationalist views), where one particular POV is so strongly held that there is simply no room for any other view, no matter how reasonable. And honestly, when I first heard about Wikipedia, I thought Ideology and cultural myopia would ruin all the articles, since ANYONE could edit and had an equal voice in what looked like "democracy-knowledge." I saw almost immediately that I was wrong about that, and that exceptionally well written articles started popping up and often included positions that the average American might cringe at, but which were in fact true. And I was even more impressed how many article were far more NPOV than the mainstream media's incredible superficial treatment of nearly every subject they address. Nonetheless, I can't say I totally understand WHY it works. I'm glad it does and glad to be a part of it. But obviously it doesn't always work and I do tend to jump in when I see an article that lacks NPOV and try to balance the one-sided voices. I typical example is when I looked at the page for my hometown Terrace_Park,_Ohio. The page had a very Euro-centric view and I tried to fix it but was met with heavy opposition from an admin. who I believe threatened to use his/her admin. powers to block me if I put in the Native American portion. The editor just reverted everything I did and another admin. Beeblebrox saw the problem and definitely agreed that the other admin. was out of line. But I didn't feel like going into contentious Wiki-litigation with DR, so instead, I just waited until the other editor who had been a problem stopped watching and corrected the content, and fortunately it stuck! I have considered trying DR, in cases like that but was afraid to. I don't understand the Wiki-court proceedings, and do not want to make a fool of myself in front of a large number of established users, and I don't want to be perceived as a "vexation litigant". Unfortunately, there is no free Wiki-legal advice for this unusual pseudo-judicial system of DR, ArbCon, etc. LOL. I actually did a search on that on-line and might have paid someone to give me Wiki-legal advice before I started trying to edit on the page! LOL. David Tornheim (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC) glad you found this useful. "why" it works, is people. there are enough people who are committed to the ideals of WP and who have really digested not only the letter but the spirit of PAG, that they are able to keep the ship on even-enough keel. i spend another chunk of my time here trying to teach newish editors how this place works and what those ideals are. some get it, some don't. some get it, with time. people have built some structures to help improve and maintain quality. I do a lot of work in heath-related articles and follow/participate in the WT:WikiProject Medicine and together that group minds many important articles here. It is super helpful to have a community Jytdog (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) GMO Controversy -- Talk discussion Jokes fwiw, i would appreciate it, if you would not engage in sarcasm and other rhetorical flourishes in the Talk page discussion, as you did in your 2nd paragraph here. Let's try to have a simple, serious discussion - dealing with the actual issues is hard enough, without distractions. You are free to do as you wish; I'm just telling you what I think would be most productive. You will find that I will just not respond to stuff like that. I think other editors may do, and if they do, it will probably be something in similar vein directed at you, and soon we are in an ugly place. Best just not to go there, in my view. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) I was afraid you would say that. Sometimes a good laugh is good for the soul to release tension from being too serious all the time, no? Besides, humor sometimes has a truth of its own--A Modest Proposal was an outstanding example of that, I think. Nietzsche's sarcasm is amazing. I know I have been to many scientific and engineering conferences where the speaker starts off with a joke. Besides, I thought Lfstevens's joke was funny too. Did you scold him as well? David Tornheim (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "I think other editors may do, and if they do, it will probably be something in similar vein directed at you, and soon we are in an ugly place." I don't think it would go to an "ugly" place. If they lack a sense of humor and bring it there, they look like fools in front of everyone. They are wise not to take it personally and laugh at it too, as I am sure Lfstevens will do! David Tornheim (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC) i don't know if you have worked on controversial articles before, but i have done so a lot and in my experience, sarcasm/rhetoric is really unhelpful and does lead the discussion astray when others respond without self-restraint. you will do as you will, of course. btw i am watching your talk page so no need to leave talkbacks at mine. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) this wasn't meant as a scold, but as advice. you can do with it as you will. i didn't see a joke by lfstevens. can you point me to what you are talking about? thx Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) You asked him about it [here] Where he added the comment: When will the anti-GMO folks produce an unimpeachable study that supports their fears? Lfstevens (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Did you not see it? Please tell you understood he was joking. David Tornheim (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC) He was being serious. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC) LOL!! David Tornheim (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC) User:Roxy the dog: Welcome to the discussion. What brings you here?David Tornheim (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC) I found that comment/set of comments confusingly formatted and so i wrote him a note on his talk page about it, yes. it was so fragmented/strange that i hesitated to react to it at all and still have not. Jytdog (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) Okay, I noticed those various fragments too, and considered replying, but I am trying to keep focus there. I think we are making progress, and I think you are beginning to see where I am coming from on the sentence in question. The jokes I just saw as light-hearted distraction before me get back to the heavy work of looking at WP:RS. I so wished you thought it was funny. Oh well. I do have another thing I wanted to say about sarcasm, but I'll get back to that later. I'm going to make a new section for discussion, because of your question asking me if I had been to or worked on a controversial page. Yes, absolutely. And I want to share my experience and the confusion I had about how Wikipedia there, and my concerns that other users get confused in the same way I did. David Tornheim (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC this is more elaborate than i what to get into. i've told you that i think it is unwise to add rhetorical flourishes and sarcasm to discussion of controversial topics, and i believe you have heard that. you asked whether i was being unfair, and I responded to that. you will do as you see fit. good luck! Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) Perhaps you are right. The man could tell a joke, but not take one of the same nature. I do think you should have scolded him too, if you knew this was his personality. It does seem like a double-standard, otherwise. I indeed found his response to my joke both annoying and needlessly distracting from what we were talking about. I think I am also annoyed at how much time you and I had to waste talking about it on top of it. If all of us just laughed there wouldn't have been a problem. Oh well--advice noted. David Tornheim (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC) as i told you above, i did not take it as a joke. i took it as too fragmentary to interpret. hence there was no double standard; i experienced only one "joke". also you have said that I "scolded" you. Parents scold their children. teachers scold their students. I have no authority over you. I told you I would prefer you not be sarcastic, and explained why. You will do as you wish. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) Attack on Pearl Harbor article experience Jytdog: In answer to your question about whether I have been on contentious pages. Yes, definitely. As I may have told you already, I was very impressed early on with the quality of Wikipedia articles, but I didn't understand how differing perspectives were handled and settled, and why the content didn't just change every day if people disagreed. Around the time I created an account, I picked a topic I knew something about that I knew would definitely be contentious and controversial to the average Patriotic, nationalist American: I knew from college level history studies the very un-Patrioriotic facts that about Attack on Pearl Harbor: FDR and the military were aware the Japanese Navy was out and was likely to strike--they just didn't know where--and, in fact, Pearl Harbor was on alert at the time of the attack. Also, the U.S. had backed Japan into a corner with foreign policy having to do with I believe trade barriers and naval power. so, it wasn't entirely a surprise Japan was going to do something about it. The only surprise was that it was not the Philippines. And, worse, FDR was itching to get into WWII, but popular sentiment was against it, so this was a convenient way to get in the war, a bit like Remember the Maine. These are all well established and documented facts (and I believe you can find them all cited in Wikipedia, but not in that article where they belong!). So, to some degree the "unprovoked" "surprise" attack wasn't quite as big of a suprise as the average Patriotic American believes it is, and I think it is easy to argue that FDR used it to get into the war--something President are quite adept at doing (I can name a few if you don't know of any. :-)). Anyway, I went to the page to see how these controversial facts were handled: Not very well at ALL. Any attempt to put any of that on the page was absolute heresy to the people who controlled the article at the time, and probably still is to this day. (Incidentally, despite the absence of this material, the page is a work of art otherwise--lots of good pics, and narrative, etc.) Anything negative like this--even if it was factual--was just a "conspiracy theory" and had to go on this page Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory, which was NOWHERE referenced on the pristine attack on pearl harbor article, because after all since it is a "conspiracy theory", it's not true, it's just b.s. in their minds, and held by lunatics. (I see that it is mentioned fairly early in the article now, but is still a "conspiracy theory"). I quickly saw it was hopeless to get anything like that in because I didn't understand the system. The take home message for me then (I view it differently now, especially after discussion with you) was this: if those with your perspective don't have a majority of the editors on your side (especially admins who can threaten to block you -or- experienced users who can twist the meaning of WP:RS to get their source in and yours rejected, and who know all the horrors of DR and the other threatened administrative actions and are probably friends with the decision makers who would be the judges and rule on their side even when any neutral observer would surely disagree), you will be bullied and you are sure to lose and they know it and are happy to flaunt it. It was pretty humbling--a bunch of thugs running the page making up and bending the rules to suit their agenda. (I suspected then this was not the plan, but I hadn't a clue what was to be done about.) Shortly after that experience, I ran into one of the few people who had a paid position at Wikipedia Foundation at Cafe Abir in San Francisco and told him about this experience. He said he was pretty disappointed to hear about it, and that that was not supposed to happen. I don't know if I got his contact info. and if I did I doubt I could find it. He was a great guy regardless and I really enjoyed conversing with him. I share this experience with you, because I know this is *not* how Wikipedia is supposed to work, but I think many new users get the feeling that this is how it works, and even long time editors seem to hold this opinion too, and that is a problem. Speaking with you--and again thank you for the long COI--I feel a little more optimistic that the system is designed to address these problem and with the right amount of patience perseverance, and attention to proper procedure, the kind of thing that I saw on the Attack on Pearl Harbor page will be rectified. David Tornheim (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC) thanks for sharing that. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC) You are welcome. The page is vastly improved on this issue as some of this is right in the lede, and it looks like its first appearance was only a few months after the time I was watching it. I would love to find out how the "conspiracy theorists" were able to get it in. (Possibly the process really did work. I really thought it was hopeless. Maybe I will put some time into researching that. I wish it didn't take so much work to figure out how something got in--although WikiBlame helps.) Nonetheless, the language there is still a little slanted. I doubt FDR deliberately provoked the Japanese to attack or even let it happen in order to get the U.S. into the war (I don't the evidence supports this theory), just as I doubt GW Bush tried to make 9/11 happen or let it happen (same). But both presidents unquestionably used the attacks to justify getting the U.S. into wars they wanted to get in to that the U.S. was opposed to with propaganda that played fast and loose with the facts. The Remember the Maine article is much more honest about how the propaganda works. I hope you can see how this is relevant to the issues I am raising on GMO's. David Tornheim (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC) You are comparing the anti-GMO stance with a conspiracy theory rejected by the mainstream, Are you saying they are parallel? That is a real question, not sarcastic. Jytdog (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) No, I wasn't comparing them directly--obviously the mainstream is concerned about GMO's!---but please hear me out. When you had asked if I had experience with controversial issues in Wikipedia, I wanted to share that particular experience and how it shaped my feelings about how Wikipedia functions in practice (far different than the ideals stated in all the policies, guidelines, etc.), and what seemed to be the typical way contested decisions are handled. My belief at that time, and for a long time after that, was this state of affairs was the result of a combination of vague, confusing, overwhelmingly complicated and seemingly contradictory rules, many of which were more like suggestions, all of which could be arbitrarily broken ("ignore the rules" WP:ignore), that could and were interpreted to suit a POV-pusher's agenda. Also included was my impression of a bizarre pseudo-judicial system of dispute resolution that appeared to be based more on friendships and loyalties than an objective and somewhat predicable decision-making system overseen by vetted judges who fully understood the rules, had pledged to obey them objectively, and had to put aside their personal opinions of the dispute's subject matter and any feelings about the parties (which is how law is at least supposed to be practiced in the United States). Instead, it seemed those particularly versed in all the confusion and ambiguity of the rules were at a huge advantage to get their way, even when it was transparent to the new user they were playing fast and loose with the rules to get what they wanted in the article. And lastly, that people with admin. power were especially to be feared, because they would not hesitate to use it to get their way, and if you challenged them, they would retaliate and get you blocked or banned. It wasn't until you sent me that wonderful long essay about COI, "passion", anonymity, [WP:Policy], etc., that I began to understand how things are supposed to work, which was inspiring. I want to believe it can work and that a reasonable NPOV will result, instead of the horrible things that at least seemed to be happening with Attack on Pearl Harbor. (Sorry if I am repeating myself. My reason for repeating it is, that I want to articulate concisely that experience, which I think may be typical for new users (and even experienced or long term users like myself who still feel overwhelmed and confused by the rules), and bring it to the attention of a bigger audience of more experience users (in some noticeboard) who may have forgotten that feeling but may have the power and wisdom of the process to address it, with hopes of both rectifying new user confusion like this, but also with aims to find ways that new users and users like me can find ways of obtaining, what I would call Wiki-Legal advice on: (1) if rule abuse really is going on, or it is just a misunderstanding of how the rules work -and- (2) how to challenge abuse if it is truly going on without how having to fear retaliation by advanced users and admins. Even better would be to have experienced users who act like attorneys assisting client users, who clearly have been wronged by users who have gamed the system, and who will stand by their client until the issue is resolved. (I work in law, so it's easy for me to see it this way)). That said, I have seen on the talk pages, comments that GMO critics are WP:Fringe and that part does indeed remind me of my experience of Attack on Pearl Harbor, where legitimate verifiable perspectives are scrubbed from the page like a nasty blemish to the "truth" that concerns raised by GMO critics are just paranoid fantasies of people who "don't know what they are talking about". The discussion about the "contamination" vs. "mixed" is a good example. I really feel the people who changed "contamination" to "mixed" in that discussion are not playing by the rules. Is it deliberate? I hope not. Perhaps, they are blind to the obvious violation of the rules, because they are surrounded by a number of people who back them up and can't see the violation either? And perhaps, deliberate or not, they feel emboldened to continue scrubbing GMO critics' concerns, because they have gotten away with it before, many times over, and it feels like the natural order of things, because after all, GMO critics are nothing but a bunch of fools (like people who believe in space aliens) and everyone with any common sense knows this, except the GMO critics. It's this patronizing attitude towards GMO critics that is a big problem. That part to me is indeed just as unfair as what happened with the Attack on Pearl Harbor article. Does that answer your question? I tried not to exaggerate too much--the first draft I'm sure you would have disapproved of!  :-) David Tornheim (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I wanted to know what you meant - if you meant that the anti-GMO position itself, is like some aspects of the pearl harbor conspiracy theories themselves. I get it, that you described your experience at the Pearl Harbor article so I could see what it was like for you and what issues you saw there. I am asking a different question, to understand you better. I took a quick look (not complete, and somewhat cursory!) of some of the history of the pearl harbor article and I see that you argued to give more weight and credence to some of the ideas held by conspiracy theories about pearl harbor and that others opposed you on the grounds of NPOV, specifically UNDUE. In your view, is that provisional description, a somewhat accurate description of what you were doing and the opposition you encountered? You are free to not continue this conversation, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) No, I did not give any support for any conspiracy theory or WP:Fringe theory. I supported having an article that reflected the current scholarship on the subject by expert historians using Wikipedia's standards for RS and NPOV and any other RS that was appropriate as I still would now. I looked again at the talk pages of that time, and am reminded how uncivil and rude those who controlled the page were, using ad hominems like "loon" and "stupid" to people they disagreed with. I was saddened to see Wikipedia discussion was not at a higher level of civility. I did stand up for those who were being mistreated by those who were all bluster and no substance. I think I was more interested in trying to get the two sides to be civil and reasonable to each other and see eye-to-eye than anything else. (Not likely, right?) I see that I put a lot of time creating an outline so both sides could insert their claims and evidence to back up their claims. When I saw it again today, I had to laugh that I actually thought either side would cooperate! They were more interested in arguing with each other, for sure. Thanks for having me take a look at it again. From rereading it now, I do see that most of the discussion on those talk pages did not sufficiently focus on RS and a bunch of it was speculation and personal opinions rather than direct references to material in RS. I would definitely approach all of it quite differently now if I saw that discussion. But I was just learning back then, observing, and it was fun to see how it worked about be part of it. I was basically "getting my feet wet" and watching what was going on more than anything else and some times jumping in. David Tornheim (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC) yes it is really important to remain focused on sources and proposed content, and how to use them per PAG, and to discuss things as simply and directly - there are many strong temptations to go wrong, in many ways. takes a lot of self-restraint. anyway, thanks for talking! Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) Thank you for talking too! Last questions on this topic: In regard to my paragraph above starting with "(Sorry if I am repeating myself..." and explanations for the purpose : (1) Do you think the most experienced users are well aware that new users may often think this is how Wikipedia actually works and why they might lose confidence in it? (2) What forum is appropriate for discussion this general Wikipedia issue? (3) Are you aware that it has already been thoroughly discussed and efforts are in process to address it, and if so where I might look at those discussions? I wouldn't know where to begin searching for any of that. As a very involved and invested Wikipedian, I would think you might know. David Tornheim (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC) when i witness new users getting all involved in hot conflicts (especially if i am not involved too) i try to jump into the new user's talk page and try to calm them down, and get them to understand that a) this place actually has a "rule of law" and is not a wild west, mad max place where people can just do whatever they want' b) they don't know anything about those "rules"; c) it is really unwise to get offended and even get in arguments when you don't understand what is going on... and I try to get them to let go of the argument and go edit elsewhere, on stuff they don't care so much about, while they learn what is going on. it works sometimes. but there is very little one can do, when a new editor comes here with an ax to grind, and will not listen, and will not compromise, and will not learn. Wikipedia, through the operations of NPOV, is very committed to being mainstream, to showing the world as it is, not as activists on any side of any issue wish it to be. In articles where there are very strong .... counter-currents to the mainstream, and activists/advocates of various stripes are constantly trying to drive fringe-y perspectives in, you will generally find a cadre of committed editors holding down the fort. (above, i told you it comes down to people. it really does). In the field of health, I call these editors "quack fighters". We get all kinds of alt med POV-pushers, big fans of this or that fad diet, people convinced that some drug harmed them (lots of those), and less often, company/PR people, all trying to push bullshit into WP. The quack fighters do really important (and difficult work) every day. Some of them are a bit too battle hardened, but you have to respect them for hanging in there and not quitting, especially with all the abuse that gets heaped on them by the tinfoil hat crowd that keeps flowing through WP (some of whom stick around and become like zits on your butt that just will not go away and keep hurting and making things ugly). I respect the quack fighters and their commitment to WP's ideals, a great deal. if you are a newish editor, and come to one of those articles wanting more representation of a minority or fringe view, you are going to have a very, very hard time getting your content to "stick". And probably an emotionally hard time as well; especially if you make typical newbie mistakes of personalizing things, instead of dealing with sources and PAG. Especially if you don't come in ready to do (ideally already having done) a lot of work to actually understand the mainstream view. I've gotten alternative views added to highly contested articles, but it was only by being very respectful of, and knowledgeable about, the mainstream position and showing, with really unimpeachable, nonpartisan sources, that the ideas I wanted to get into articles were very solidly part of the mainstream - just not in the center of it. And by being respectful and focused on content, not contributors. so... that is about the best answer i can give you. i think a lot of malarky (cliques and bad power game behavior) happens at lot here in "fuzzy" topics like video games, software... other stuff where there are not serious, scholarly/scientific institutions that produce a serious body of literature that in turn provides a great foundation of reliable sources to work with. I avoid those topics in WP (I actually don't care about them much); but i see really ugly battles about them at various drama boards - and it usually comes down to shitty source A says X and shitty source B says Y... nightmare stuff for me. It doesn't happen so much in topics I work in (mostly ag and health) because there is a great body of solid scientific literature to work with. don't know if that is helpful or not. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC) I didn't answer your question fully, about helping new editors. I know there are all kinds of tools to help new editors - the various welcome templates, everything in the Template:Help_navigation help navigation template, the invitations to the Wikipedia:Teahouse (meant to be a welcoming place to help new editors get adjusted), the WIkipedia Adventure training modules.. there is also a community working on this, Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. I don't know if, or if so how, they try to help new editors who really want to work on contentious articles. Like I said, i do my best to advise new editors not to try - its like trying to climb mount everest when you have just started learning how to climb; or skiing a black diamond trail when you are just starting to ski. WP:COMPETENCE really is required sometimes here, as it is in real life. Jytdog (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) science hi david. you seem pretty committed to working on the GMO stuff, so I want to ask you... how much of the underlying science do you understand? if you don't understand it much, that is fine, but i would appreciate the opportunity to tell you about it. i find that the work goes much better when everybody is starting with a baseline understanding. thx Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) Far more than the average U.S. citizen and many of the reporters who write articles about it for the mainstream and just repeat stuff from press releases they got from one side or the other and couple of short interviews with the originators of the press release. I know a little bit about how journalists work on "breaking stories". But I know far less than GMO critics like Jeffrey Smith, Michael Pollun or advocates like Pamela Ronald or John Entine, and far far less than scientists who are experts who work in toxicology like Seralini and specialize in the science of food safety (I'm not talking about the regulation which is a very different matter). I also understand the politicization of science within scientific institutions and at universities. My parents are both professors emeritus from a major University and one actually did studies in drug testing and is familiar from first hand experience with the heavy handed ways drug companies will manipulate studies to try to make it so they can sell their drug, and how using the wrong statistics is part of it. I could tell you more about one particular story on that, but I would need to make sure it doesn't violate and ethical issues to talk about it. I have a B.S. Electrical Engineering and a Masters in E.E. as well, but I don't consider myself a scientist, but I know quite a lot about physics and chemistry, but took no additional courses in biology, organic chemistry, biochemistry. My science study in college was all with dead stuff!  :-) Thanks for the response on your page--I'll get back to that. I thought I would give you this report. One reason that I more than the average American besides my knowledge of science and info. from my parents is that I have spent a fair amount of time reading about food and watching documentaries like Jeffrey Smith's GMO Roulette--which exaggerates about the actual impact on health (I know that from reading some studies)--many things he does say I have checked out and have found nothing that refutes them at all. I did see a John Entine article (or maybe it was someone else) going point by point trying to discredit everything thing in the film--and some of the things they did question like cause-effect of leaky gut (which MAY be related to GMO's or equally well might not) I thought were fair criticisms. But the existence of something like Bt corn is pretty horrifying to me to be honest, and I think that most Americans feel the same way--regardless of how many studies so far have not observed any effect at all on human health, and this is the big value of the film--to tell people things that they don't know and have good reason to be concerned about (IMHO). I hope that answers your question. I have tried reading the various studies and because I am not an expert it in toxicology it can be challenging to know if many of the things Seralini said defending his behavior are reasonable or not, especially for example, his claim that Monsanto used the same # and kind of rats in their 90 day feeding trials, but then critics said that he needed to use more because of the mortality of the rats--I don't know if that is a fair criticism of his work or not. And if it is, I want to understand why he would use the wrong # of rats for a 2 YEAR STUDY if he knew in advance the # of rats was too few. It could be because of pressure from Greenpeace. I really don't know. So something like that, I wish I could talk to a specialist in toxicology who does studies like that but has not done them on GMO's to see what makes the most sense. Again I hope that answers your question. David Tornheim (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC) One thing I meant to point out that I should point out, which I have been holding off on saying, is that the relevant fields, I believe for questions about the safety of GMO foods are: Food Safety, Toxicology and Epidemiology, possibly a couple of others not Biogenetics. One of the big problems with the "scientific consensus" statement I have been challenging is that it originates with biogeneticist scientists who can make enormous profits from minimum regulation and study and findings of potential or actual negative health impacts. Being out of their specialty, I do not believe they are qualified to make such wide sweeping claims about the safety of the applications they create (any more than you and me are), or any more than engineers who design integrated circuits are qualified to make consumer safety claims about their designs, unless they have special training in the correct field and are not tied financially to selling their products.) I have not raised this issue yet in that subject and maybe I should just copy and paste this portion or rewrite something similar. David Tornheim (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC) thanks for answering. what you write opens more questions for me, but i will just ask a few. when i asked you if you understand the science, i wanted to know if you understand genetic engineering. sorry for not being more precise. i am not asking if you could do it if you standing in a lab - i am asking if you understand what goes on, in making a genetically engineered bacteria, plant or mouse (or gene therapy, for that matter). I din't ask what you understand about subsequent steps in bringing a GM crop to market and am considering how and whether to address that with you off the article talk page (we already started addressing this with the "substantial equivalence" discussion at the article Talk page) i can explain to you what is wrong with Seralini's reasoning defending his study design (and more importantly, his rhetoric) if you like. i can give you my best guess as to why the study design was set up the way it was, if you like. please tell me if you like, why the existence of something like Bt corn is pretty horrifying to you. i would be interested to hear. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) No, I don't know much about how biogenetics is done. I understand from this article that there are at least two major ways of doing it: (1) gene gun (which is mentioned in "Genetic Roulette" documentary (2) using bacteria to replicate either DNA or proteins or something like that. Observing the DNA I understand can be done with electron scanning microscopes. How one is able to take a strand from one gene (these are pretty small, right?) and force that small strand into another organism's gene--that a bit harder for me to envision. Like a operation to try to take a collection of molecules from someone's brain--what tools are able to cut and dice at submicroscopic levels? Despite how impossible it seems to be able to drill around and do construction at these submicroscopic levels, I know some sleep study experiments involved putting probes into INDIVIDUAL neurons. Those I would think are about as small as a DNA strand--so that's hard for me to believe too, but I know that can be done--I just can't imagine HOW that is possible. Having worked in VLSI design, I do understand how chips are created at these levels--they use a very finely calibrated laser, masks are photographically reduced to do etching. Seralini: I am creating a new topic for that. Bt Corn "please tell me if you like, why the existence of something like Bt corn is pretty horrifying to you." I don't think food (even if it is just for animals) should have pesticide (or herbicide) added to it. We was are instructed to wash off our conventional fresh fruits, for example, to rid of pesticide residues, because of undesirable toxic effects of pesticides and herbicides to humans (even though clearly not all pesticides have negative human health impacts). Pesticides and herbicides (the suffix gives the indication) are designed to kill living beings, so adding them to the various parts of the food supply, especially in widespread quantities with very little long-term study, to me is very risky. Unintended consequences could be pretty bad--consider DDT. One might say that pesticides and herbicides exist in nature. I do know that honey, for example, doesn't spoil because it has an anti-bacterial layer or emulsion, which is probably not unlike a pesticide. That is not so troubling to me because it has developed from evolution and has been around for many centuries (or probably far far longer), and there is no evidence I know of even from paranoid and delusion people much less highly trained scientists that eating honey in ordinary quantities has negative health impacts, except for those who might be allergic to it. Evolution is a very slow process, but biogenetics is not. Question back for you: Do you understand toxicology (and epidemiology) and if so, on what level of expertise do you have and how did you obtain that knowledge?David Tornheim (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks for answering. I understand toxicology and epidemiology enough to discuss them soundly and confidently. I have a high level understanding of statistics. I am not discussing personal details. if you want me to explain genetic engineering to you, let me know. if you want me to explain Bt to you, let me know (the comparison with DDT or any other small molecule is not apt). Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) "The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation" by Jonathan R. Latham, Allison K. Wilson, and Ricarda A. Steinbrecher (J Biomed Biotechnol. 2006) is informative and concise. It complements an aforecited law review in showing that the consequences of genetic engineering procedures are, in fact, unpredictable and not well understood. Also see: User:Groupuscule/GMO#Engineering Creates Unpredictable Changes to DNA. "Explanations" of genetic engineering, propounded by the likes of Henry I. Miller, oversimplified the process in a way which no longer stands up to scientific scrutiny (if indeed it ever did). groupuscule (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Séralini Jtydog said "i can explain to you what is wrong with Séralini's reasoning defending his study design (and more importantly, his rhetoric) if you like." Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Yes, I would like to hear that. FYI, when I first talked with you I had zero respect for the study, and thought Séralini did not apply statistics correctly either out of intention or ignorance. That conclusion came shortly after the prodding one of my parents (who is very Pro-GMO) for A SINGLE study like the one Lfstevens was asking for. When I saw the various memes about the Séralini study, I briefly looked at the study, which I didn't really spend enough time to fully understand and showed it to my Pro-GMO parent. My Pro-GMO parent attacked the study, criticizing it for statistical insignificance and use of the Sprague-Dawley rat designed to get cancer. I trust that parent's judgement about reading a study, but now I wonder if that parent, instead of reading it just Googled it to find the criticisms. I see that parent often uses all the Pro-GMO rhetoric like "feeding the world" or "GM has been going on for centuries with traditional breeding", rather than coming to that conclusion independently as I had formerly believed. The criticism of too few rats (I was told 10 in the control and 10 in the study group, but I see it was 10 per group, with maybe 10 gruops) were too few to obtain significantly different results. From my knowledge of statistics, I agree, and wondered my anyone would use so few rats. But then later I discovered that Monsanto used the SAME # of rats and no one was criticizing them for doing inadequate study of statistical significance! When I heard that, I knew there was far more to the story and so I read up a bunch more on Séralini and think he is probably an upstanding guy and was unfairly attacked--except I think the PR methods to announce the study are a bit questionable and I don't approve from what I have read (and if Greenpeace was the major funder of the study that I can see how that compromises the communication at a minimum, and possibly also the choice of methods an # of rats). But Pamela Ronald I think does the same kind of things on the other side and has COI herself, so it not just one side's PR voice that is a problem. The fact that the study was done with Sprague-Dawley rats made the finding of tumors not as remarkable as I originally thought when I showed the Pro-GMO parent--and hence the pictures in the memes of rats with tumors was DELIBERATELY misleading and designed to scare. But I suspect that miscommunication is not necessarily Séralini's fault, and may be the media--which loves sensationalism--and very likely also Greenpeace's PR communication strategies. And since he was taking money from Greenpeace, he might have been compromised in giving them the pictures or letting them take the pictures, possibly not realizing that those pics were going to be used to send a misleading message to the public (but I have trouble believing he could be so easily mislead by Greenpeace!). I suspect something like that was going on so Séralini may have been compromised by the funders--which happens all the time with drug companies on the industry side as I had mentioned before. I did understand that the Sprague-Dawley rat was standard in toxicology so one can't fault the study or experimenter for using them. From everything I have been reading more recently, I think Séralini is probably not any worse of a scientist than say Pamela Ronald. And both that both have some COI issues that have compromised their messages to the public. David Tornheim (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC) The problem with the study design was the whole thing - the choice of rat, the numbers of rats, and the length of time (lifetime of the rat). That rat develops high numbers of tumors over its lifetime, all by itself. Same rat, way more rats (60 per arm per OECD), same length of time, the results would have been interpretable. (this what the Grace Project says they are doing) Same rat, same number of rats, less time (which is the current standard tox study design), the results are interpretable. Seralini's design - not interpretable. Just noise. I don't speculate about motives. I just know what Seralini did and said. And I know what Ronald did - when her lab discovered the contaminated reagents, she self-retracted. That is what good scientists do. I just wrote a long response to your bringing Ronald into this again, and deleted it. If you think what happened with Ronald and what happened with Seralini are in any way parallel, I don't know what to say to you. I really don't. Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) Hi David, just as an FYI your comment caught my eye: "But then later I discovered that Monsanto used the SAME # of rats and no one was criticizing them . . ." That's actually a common half truth in this topic that comes up often and part of the reason why the nuance and understanding needed on the controversies for GMOs (or any science topic) makes editing the articles so difficult. Monsanto did a very different study than Seralini in that it was for a shorter period of time (90 days I believe). The number of rats in the Monsanto study was actually appropriate for the length of the study, but Seralini's went way beyond that length and would require more rats because of it. That detail often gets glossed over whenever the "Monsanto used the same number of rats" comments pop up. Just curious if you were aware of that. It actually could be something worth mentioning in the article, but I'd have to go back and find the sources that briefly mention that if it's even worth including at all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC) yep - sprague rat, 10 rats per arm, 90 days, is the current standard tox test. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC) (striking, this discussion is not something I should have done Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)) Yes, I knew about the 90 day vs. 2 years was mentioned in some of the criticisms. I am not sufficiently an expert to know the basis of the conclusion that he should have used 65 rats. Is there an international standard in toxicology that 10 rats is fine for 90 days and 65 rats are required for 2 years. That would be more compelling that he was not doing "good science." David Tornheim (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Bingo. The OECD puts out guidelines exactly for this (one example [4]). [This source] that we also currently cite explains the difference between the two studies pretty well in the last few paragraphs. We don't flesh that out too much right now in the article, but that's a conversation for the talk page there if anyone wants to start looking into that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks. I'll take a look at the standards. David Tornheim (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC) I looked at the standard. The one you gave me is the wrong standard. Séralini used OECD No. 408, just like Monsanto did. Séralini was not testing for carcinogenesis; he was testing for toxicity. He specifically says in the study's introduction "Thus, it was not designed as a carcinogenicity study." For some reason the editor appears confused and says Séralini was looking for carcinogenicity, when it is clear he was not. So this doesn't really provide any evidence that Séralini used the wrong # of rats, any more than it does for Monsanto. In fact, it appears to confirm that he did use the correct number of rats to test toxicity. Here is a quote from the editor from the link you gave me: In accordance with OECD Guideline No. 408 (OECD, 2009a), the Hammond et al. study was limited to 90 days following and used 20 rats/sex/group, and was conducted in general compliance with OECD Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) guidelines, as previously stated. The Séralini et al. study ran for two (2) years with only 10 rats/sex/group and was reported to be done in a GLP environment according to OECD guidelines (which guideline is not explicitly stated in the paper). Séralini et al. state that they had “had no reason to settle at first for a carcinogenesis protocol using 50 rats per group,” as recommended in OECD Nos. 451 and 453 (guidelines for Carcinogenicity Studies and Combined Chronic Toxicity/Carcinogenicity Studies, respectively)(OECD, 2009a; OECD, 2009b), and instead seem to have opted for 10 rats/sex/group as recommended by OECD No. 408 (guidelines for Repeated Dose 90-day Oral Toxicity Study in Rodents). While the number of animals used may have been sufficient to reach conclusions regarding oral toxicity, it proved insufficient for conclusions related to the carcinogenicity of the test substances. [Emphasis added.] source So the editor appears to agree that the # of rats were sufficient to test toxicity, which is exactly what he said he was testing in the study.David Tornheim (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC) One of the criticisms of Seralini is that he calls it a toxicity study, but the results he emphasizes in the study are indeed carcinogenic in nature. The main problem though was that Seralini went out 2 years instead of 90-days. That causes multiple confounding factors related to rat longevity that makes the two studies very different and also makes Seralini's a more poorly designed study for toxicological findings. More rats are needed for longer studies not just because they're testing for carcinogenicity, but because of the underlying biology of the rats when a study lasts longer. That's the basic gist of some of the underlying science just for reference. Since we're not actually generating content right now from this conversation though, I'll be letting this conversation be. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Done In light of your comment on my Talk page, I believe it is best if we stop talking off the article Talk page. I am unwilling to risk being perceived as canvassing (no canvassing is an important WP policy, and important to me) and you are clearly taking it that way, and I also don't want you to feel intimidated. See you on the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Jytdog: I'm sorry if my allegations about your PAST behavior are upsetting. I knew they would be, but it needed to be said. Now think about how it might have made me feel when you made canvassing allegations against me and they still are on the talk page even though we have been gaining rapport and trust. I could have done the same, but I did not. I honestly think it is pretty childish to strikeout all our discussion like that and I expect more from an adult. Please, take a deep breath, take some time out, and think about what I said that was so upsetting. I was not talking about our most RECENT discussion, which is very productive. I was talking about WHEN I FIRST SPOKE TO YOU and you said THINGS WOULD GET UGLY and the way you treated Alexlikescats. This recent discussion is quite productive and I think you know that. I would really appreciate if once you cool off, you undid the strikeouts of the recent discussion so we can continue and talk like two adults. David Tornheim (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC) I'm not upset. You are continuing to write all this stuff about contributors and not content, and you are continuing to make very strong statements about what motivates other editors; as I've said to you before, this is both unwise and not what we do here. You don't know what motivated my actions today, and you haven't asked. From my behavior, I think it is very clear that I am backing out of the kind of engagement I have had with you. Striking, is what we do here, when we disclaim what we said and apologize. That is what I have done. I do regret having engaged with you as I did, and I am sorry for having taken up your time and for the upset I have caused you. I will see you on the article talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Note Hello, I'm Jytdog. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) Per WP:NPA and WP:TPG. please use article Talk pages to discuss content, not contributors. Thanks. If you have a concern with the behavior of other editors, please politely bring that up with them on their Talk pages, and if you don't see a change in the behavior you see as problematic, you can take that issue to the relevant noticeboard. Jytdog (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC) OK, you have continued and i again have removed your comment. On article talk pages, please discuss content, based on policies and guidelines. I am politely telling you that your behavior is problematic. Please change your behavior, or I will need to bring this to a notice board. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC) You had suggested on my Talk page that "It might be help if when someone comes onto any of these pages and starts making changes or recommendations to tell them up front how much time you put into the articles and the goals you have had for them, past problems and concerns and the desire not to repeat these problems, that you hope to be able to work together to achieve these goals if they are agreeable. It might still be a bit heavy handed, but I think it would help them understand your resistance to changes in the article, especially resistance when someone is trying to do a better job of presenting the GMO critics concerns.". I had responded to that quite clearly, which i subsequently struck. I will re-claim what I said there, and say it here: "the notion that i would somehow introduce myself to new editors and explain my history there to them is ... well... wrong-headed wikipedia-wise and icky, in my view. first it is way too much about contributor not content. second, i know that i don't own the articles and that i have no intrinsic authority over them. i have to justify whatever changes i make per PAG, every day, just like the next editor." That remains true. Your effort to do what you recommended that I do, which i removed, is as wrong-headed with regard to WP's policies and guidelines as your initial suggestion that I do it. It is not what we do here, and i take it as a personal attack; i provided notice of that to you above. You have told me on my Talk page that you find my behavior problematic. That was the right forum in which to initially address your concern. I told you that i heard you. If you see that I continue the behavior, you can bring me to a notice board if you like. Please stop discussing contributors on the article Talk page; please do not canvass about this either. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC) I did not use any ad hominem attacks, foul language, sexist, racist or otherwise illegal language, etc. I simply pointed out the behavior of the editors, not any specific editors themselves. Those who are concerned about GMO's have often noted the problem, and as I pointed out to you, you have treated them unkindly for doing it, and ultimately they have been chased off the GMO pages. I was even more surprised you have taken the bold step of even censoring my comments and concerns which are valid and relevant to the article's lack of NPOV and bias. Such censorship seems to me unethical--it has never happened to me on Wikipedia: People have disagreed on talk pages, but never have I seen a user censored like that. The obvious problem with such censorship is that then only your opinion survives--even on the talk page. It's a kind of authoritarian rule that I think is very un-Wikipedian that silences reasonable dissent. Your response above is somewhat misleading. When I pointed out your problematic behavior, you did not respond by saying "I heard you"--that language preceded the concerns I raised about Alexlikescats. Your response to the concerns I raised about your behavior was to strike out everything you ever said to me on my talk pages here, which I said was pretty childish. You also immediately archived all your talk, so no one might inadvertently see what I said--sneaky. I do appreciate, however, this far more mature response acknowledging the concerns I raised that I do think have been a very big problem and I hope are not continued.David Tornheim (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC) I am not going to continue this back and forth, as you are distorting what I did and said. It seems to me that the more I say, the more I give you to distort. So there is really no point in continuing, except to say that I disagree with just about everything you say above. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC) On Canvassing Contacting another editor about a page they are already working on is hardly ever seen as canvassing, though on contentious pages, I suggest you (1)start new user page conversations with only one other editor at a time (2) avoid calls to action of the 'we should do x' variety, (3) speak about groups of editors generally and avoid specifically mentioning one editor, even by insinuation, i.e. 'lead editor'. In my experience, if you follow these points and are generally civil it would be almost impossible for anyone to bring admin action against you for user or talk page comments, either on the grounds of canvassing or 'personal attack'. As Jytdog has said above, article talk pages should be used to discuss the article. If you have advice for another editor, their user page is the place. If you feel things are getting heated or personal, taking a day away from editing to reflect can be a good thing. Dialectric (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. Isn't Jytdog's behavior of intimidating new people who come to the page who are not Pro-GMO problematic? It seems to me very un-Wikipedian and tantamount to canvassing, and others have complained as well, and have successfully been chased off the GMO articles. I don't know the best way to address selective bullying on pages, especially by experienced users who know the system and have loyalties with the judicial decision-makers. Those decision-makers may not be very objective in holding an abuser--who is their friend--accountable, instead blaming the abused for inviting the abuse (like when men say a woman caused the man to behave badly by wearing a sexy outfit). So when I point out the behavior, the bullying, in fact, only gets worse; the bully doesn't see the problem. I was completely shocked that my comment on the talk page was censored and Jytdog has made it clear he is committed to preventing my concern to see the light of day on the talk page (where I believe it belongs), so that now only the comments from people who share his/her POV will be visible--even on the talk page! I've never seen anything like that on Wikipedia before. Is censoring on the talk page like that even permissible? David Tornheim (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia, often framed as 'the encyclopedia anyone can edit', is, in certain areas, becoming the encyclopedia where only confident experts can edit. This trend extends beyond GMO articles. See the way the guideline (not policy) WP:MEDRS has been applied to a wide range of health articles. This may be a good thing or a bad thing depending on one's perspective, but it is a trend I've noticed, and one aspect of this trend is the disencouragement of some new editors. Intimidating new editors is bad regardless of who is doing it, but I am unaware of any admin actions taken against someone for aggressive but policy-based responses to new editors. In regard to 'judicial decision-makers', the final say comes down to admins, and there are enough admins that personal friendships will hold little sway over the outcome of a WP:ANI proceeding, for instance. The key to making use of the wiki-judicial system is a thorough knowledge of wikipedia policy and precident, again a major obstacle for new editors. While Wikipedia:Wikilawyering is discouraged, what that term constitutes is something of a gray area and experienced users can definitely leverage the system to their own ends. If you are willing to waste a few hours wading through archives, you can often find examples where an experienced editor violates the same policies he or she stridently enforces elsewhere. Removing personal attacks from a talk page is permissible, usually only done in clearcut cases - see WP:RPA.Dialectric (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks again for your response. I will look at Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Where is the proper forum to raise the issue of unreasonable censorship? David Tornheim (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC) I don't have a clear answer to your proper forum question. You may be able to answer for yourself looking over Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. It could be that the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard is what you are looking for, though you will have to decide that. In general if you see behavior which is contrary to policies, one approach would be to make a note of the diff off-wiki for personal use, then when you have compiled several which show a pattern of behavior by a user or WP:GANG, take that to WP:ANI. Administrators are more likely to respond to a pattern of behavior than a single breach of policy. Dialectric (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC) As I have said several times, the best way to deal with a behavior issue is to bring it up directly and politely with the user on their talk page, and if you don't get satisfaction, go to a noticeboard. See WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, which is indeed in WP:DR. Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC) edit war warning You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Genetic engineering. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Behavior at Genetic Engineering Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. In addition to edit warring warning above, this diff appears as pretty strong WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior on your part. It's generally considered very disruptive to make a new edit, have it reverted, and refuse to reach consensus on it by instead trying to edit war it back in. The onus is on you to justify the new change. In such a case when your edit is reverted, you need to go to the talk page to convince other editors it should be made if you really want to push forward with the content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC) I have no attachment to the sentences and have no desire for a "battleground". I didn't restore them because I feel a strong need for them to be in the article, but only because they were deleted without a valid reason and without any mention on the talk page. It was my understanding that if you choose to revert without a valid reason in the comments, you MUST provide an explanation on the talk page, and that without it, the user can safely revert it back until a valid reason is given or the matter is discussed. Perhaps, I misunderstood the rule. And if so, I'm sorry. Now that Jytdog has followed what I understand the process to be--of bringing a valid objection for the material--I am fine with it being omitted. I think it is important that we collaborate rather than to have one side reverting without giving any Wikipedia reason for the reverts. David Tornheim (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC) my edit note read "not accurate. ancient source" which is shorthand for what I wrote at length on the Talk page. here. you continue to misrepresent me, which is yet another violation of the WP:TPG, which says (bolding from the original) "Do not misrepresent other people:" Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Why the new allegations? I did not misrepresent you. I said you did not give valid reasons and I stand behind that. Saying an RS is "too old" is not a valid reason to reject an article if you do not offer to add a more recent source that is more to the point. Sometimes an old RS is the only thing available or is the best RS. Saying it is "not accurate" is not a valid reason either. That is little more that WP:OR. If you are going to say it is "not accurate", you have to back that up with a convincing argument that is supported by RS. I don't understand why you wish to continue to argue and lodge new allegations. I don't see what purpose that serves. We seem to have come to an agreement that I will be more specific about an RS I intend to add, and you will not simply revert new material without giving a valid reason for rejecting it. That is collaboration. Why don't we move forward and focus on making the article better rather than create new allegations and drama over a matter that is settled? David Tornheim (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC) No new allegations. i consider the matter done. but i always write edit notes when i am editing articles, and i try to be communicative in them; the reason i put in my edit note is the same reason (more briefly stated) i gave on talk. I gave a valid reason - the reason you ultimately accepted - in my edit note. You have now written a number of times that I did not give a valid reason in my edit note. I chose to respond to that, and i name it for what it is - misrepresenting what I wrote and what i did. you went there, i responded. i am done. If you edit war again, that is on you. Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Re: Public relations I hope we can all take seriously the continuing and expanding problem of industry PR and work together to address the problem before we lose even more honest unpaid editors and the public starts to lose confidence in Wikipedia for failing to keep this COI behavior in check. It's not very helpful to discuss and tackle such large problems. Stick to the small ones, and if the little problems become little success stories, then you'll get one large success, which is what you want. So start small and work on a micro level. One thing you don't want to do is start off by shooting yourself in the foot. In other words, don't cite people and things like Sharyl Attkisson (an anti-vaxxer), TEDx (zero credibility, as anyone can participate), or Michael Crichton (a climate change denier). So you guys have pretty much done more to shoot down your own argument than anyone else. Don't just vet your sources, vet your own arguments. If it doesn't pass the smell test, then discard it and start fresh. And as always, follow the money. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the advice. Did you watch the video? She really isn't an "anti-vaxer" as far as I can tell. David Tornheim (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Look, she personally uses the tag "anti-vaccine" on her blog posts.[5] Let's not argue about the silly stuff. She's clearly anti-vaccine, whether you agree with or disagree with her position. And why the heck is she even being used here? Like I said, vet your sources and your arguments. Then, when you come to the table for an argument, you'll be prepared. Before arguing with other people, argue with yourself. Furthermore, complaining about public relations on Jimbo's page is a waste of your time. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC) some good advice, V. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC) oh, i just saw what prompted you to write that. oh my. Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks, Viriditas. I looked over all the drama on her talk page accusing her of being anti-vaccine, and her responses from her agents strongly saying she is not, even calling it "libelous", which got her agents IP addresses blocked for indirectly threatening legal action. I did read someone say her blog said "anti-vaccine" but I don't think they pointed to the blog, so I thought they just made it up. Although I tend to think the benefits of vaccines generally outweigh net dangers, I don't think anyone who has concerns of possibly side effects, etc. should be immediately repudiated as a quack, WP:Fringe, "loon", "conspiracy theorist", etc. Many medicines have negative side effects, and I have no reason to believe vaccines are any different, and just because the potential benefit is very high, that does not mean all risks, no matter how bad, should be completely ignored and the makers of the vaccines are able to produce them with complete impunity. So, in a sense, it's really the same problem. We need an honest assessment of the risks, not a rhetoric that "vaccines are always good" or "vaccines are always bad" kind of false-dilemma... David Tornheim (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC) I struck out that part above, as I'm not interested in whether she's anti-vaccine or simply covers anti-vaccine stories. That someone was Paul Offit and his comments on Democracy Now! several weeks ago put the issue to rest.[6] We need people to get vaccinated. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC) ANI notice There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Disussion is here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing_and_hounding_with_allegations_of_bad_faith_on_GMO. Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC) the reason why So, I finally wrote down why I backed out of our discussion, over at ANI. You made guesses above, which you seem to believe are accurate but are simply your fantasies. You continued in that line in your response at ANI, where you mischaracterized what I wrote about why I did what I did. here is what I wrote: I had a very long interaction with David in the leadup to this, (which was prompted by my noticing one of his canvassing messages b/c it was written on a page I watch; I became aware of the others only later). In that interaction I explained how the GMO articles came to be as they are, discussed how COI is and has been discussed and dealt with by the en-WP community, discussed how concerns about behavior are handled in WP, and urged him many times to focus on content, not contributors, nor their motivations - that this is what we do in WP. I grew increasingly worried by things that David wrote in that interaction, and my worries were realized in this message on my Talk page, which to be honest, freaked me out. I realized I had a stalker who a) does not understand how WP works at all (we identify reliable sources, craft content from them based on PAG, and discuss them - we do not speculate endlessly on what motivated this or that editor to do or say what... and that message was the fruit of, and 100% committed to, analysis of (guessed-at) motivations of contributors, all explained with great confidence. yikes.) and b) was really, really committed to his conspiratorial, convoluted POV about me. I replied appropriately (and I meant it) that I would be more careful to welcome new editors going forward. I then struck my interactions with him on my Talk page, apologizing for having bothered him (which I meant). And I archived my Talk page and reduced my User page to a minimum. And went to his Talk page and likewise struck my remarks there and apologized to him again. I have never had a stalker before; it is a weird feeling. you characterized this as follows: Jytdog admits in the box (show more detail above), that s/he 'freaked' out and struck out ALL the correspondence between us and archived all discussion. I don't think that is a mature way to address the very relevant concern I had raised. You are not dealing with what I wrote. Please actually read it. Your behavior freaked me out. I also acknowledged that I see your perspective on new editors (which is different from agreeing with it - I do see it) I sought the ANI to give you a warning to stop harassing/stalking me and to teach you that canvassing/campaigning is not OK in WP. I am hopeful you will get that warning and the lesson. In any case, if you continue the behavior, you will build up yet more evidence and it will end up being enough to have action taken against you. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC) So, i have listened to what you have had to say, and said that i see how you could be concerned with the way i interact with new editors and acknowledged your concerns about OWN, and asked for community feedback on that. At ANI you acknowledged that I posted the note above, but you haven't responded and I have no sense that you have tried to understand my objection to your behavior. Would you, please? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Co-op mentor Hi David! I'm Jethro, a coordinator at The Co-op. Thanks for making your profile. I wanted to introduce you to your mentor, EuroCarGT, who should be coming around shortly to get things started. I noticed you're involved in some disputes over GMO-related articles, which I know can be fairly contentious. I think one thing to help get both of you started is discussing a little about what you want to accomplish through mentorship. You wrote on your profile that you want to deal with industry slant in Wikipedia articles, which seems to be focused on how the neutral point of view works in practice, but maybe you can provide a little more guidance on where we can help you best. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Thank you! Let me see where things are at the ANI discussion and I will get back to you. David Tornheim (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Actually, please stop contributing to the ANI thread and let us close it. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC) ^Yes, I would like that to happen too. Unfortunately, I had to address a reasonable request. The closing of the ANI is not within my control, and new additions by others may require my response. However, I would like a neutral 3rd party to help address conflict between two main parties.David Tornheim (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC) David, the thread can't close if you keep contributing to it. Nothing requires your response. Sometimes the best thing to do is to let the other person have the last word. If you keep contributing to the thread, you could conceivably hang yourself with your own rope, leading to a block. It's best to say little to nothing than to indict yourself. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Regarding the mentoring, I may need to wait until the ANI closes.David Tornheim (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC) That's a really bad idea. Start mentoring now and avoid ANI at all costs. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Teahouse talkback: you've got messages! Hello, David Tornheim. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there! Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by   Bfpage |leave a message  23:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template). Congrats... You asked an awesome question in the Teahouse! Great Question Badge Awarded to those who have asked a great question on the Teahouse Question Forum. There are no stupid questions, but some are excellent! Good questions are those that reflect serious curiosity about editing and help others learn. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges Great Question on BP!   Bfpage |leave a message  23:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Congrats... You asked an awesome question in the Teahouse! Great Question Badge Awarded to those who have asked a great question on the Teahouse Question Forum. There are no stupid questions, but some are excellent! Good questions are those that reflect serious curiosity about editing and help others learn. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges Great Question on BP!   Bfpage |leave a message  23:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC) canvassing yet more? we have this meat-puppeting,.and now this? what is wrong with you, man? Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC) and now this? that is not a teahouse question. you just will not refrain from campaigning, will you? Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC) Why is it not a TeaHouse question? I was referred to ask questions there (here and here) to deal with behavior of people like you if I wasn't sure what to do because of the AN/I *you* raised against me. That's what I did both times. You recently complained to me that I didn't spend enough time with mentoring to your liking, which is what the TeaHouse is for. Now you complain when I do. Are you accusing @Alexbrn: for WP:Canvassing here and @Formerly98: for WP:Canvassing here and for campaigning for bringing attention to the COI Duck in new forums likely to bring votes to delete the article? Sorry you don't see the problem and double-standards with your own behavior and endless accusations and criticism. I would appreciate it if you stopped stalking and hounding me, in this section of my talk page and here and here. Consider this is your first warning. David Tornheim (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC) Did you read the response you got there from Bfpage? Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC) yet more. you just will not stop, will you. You find someone opposing me, and you try to reel them in.Jytdog (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC) I'm confused. How is this cavassing? Please stop with these frivolous accusations, harassment and assumption of "bad faith". David Tornheim (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC) let's see, after you see someone argue with me in an ugly way ("I saw you post at COI"), you try to pull him into several conversations where other people are disagreeing with me. at some point i hope you heed the advice several people have given you, and just start working on articles. the more and more time you spend on this dramah, the more you show you are not not here to build an encyclopedia. I (and others) keep warning you, and you keep blowing it off. your choice. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC) ANI There is a discussion you are mentioned in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#David Tornheim's behavior you'll want to know about. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC) thank you for giving notice, Liz. I apologize to David for not having done that. Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Your recent edits Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Teahouse talkback: you've got messages! Hello, David Tornheim. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there! Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by   Bfpage |leave a message  21:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template). Note about canvassing It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Bayer. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Personal attacks David, if you have an issue with my edits, please take them up on the article talk page. If you have an issue with my behavior, ANI is the appropriate venue. If you think there is an undisclosed COI, COIN is your destination of choice. Personal attacks have no place on Jimbos Talk page, on article Talk pages, or in other content focused venues. I'm frankly just as uncomfortable with your editing style as you are with mine. The absence of a reciprocal flow of invective should not be taken as ceding the moral high ground. It merely reflects respect for Wikipedias behavioral guidelines and good manners. Respectfully, Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 03:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC) No "personal attack". That was Witness impeachment. -David Tornheim (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC) So david, let me try again to explain my concerns here. In general, "witness impeachment" really doesn't accomplish anything here. What you did was to Post a series of edits that you disagreed with and present that as evidence that I'm some sort of dishonest shill. This is ineffective because your tone makes it clear to outsiders that you would likely regard anyone who disagreed with you as a shill or otherwise dishonest. Accuse me of edit-warring for a single edit, which doesn't fit anybody's definition of that behavior here, and Attacked Jytdog for criticizing your behavior, which clearly fit the definition of canvassing that can be found here. The problem with this approach is twofold. One it does not accomplish your goal of discrediting me, because people see this sort of hot-headed, accusatory and personal remark as evidence of someone who is not viewing the issues dispassionately and logically. We have lots of aggressive, insulting, partisans here, and you just make yourself look like one of them with these sorts of remarks. Secondly, it tends to piss people off, though I personally am willing to cut some slack given that you are in many ways a new editor, having not spent much time here before early this year. What would have worked better? you could have responded directly to my rhetorical questions by providing examples of people who were the subject of reprisal even though they followed the rules You could have offered examples from your own experience to back up your own opinion What makes it a "personal attack" is that rather than addressing the issues I raised, you questioned my character. Its not just rude, its also politically ineffective here because it makes you look bad. WP:GF and WP:NPA are good rules to follow. Its not just good manners, its also effective politics. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 21:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Question David - do you think there are any safe examples we can use to demonstrate some of the points made in the essay without including names, only passages for comparison? What I've done is much different from what it was before and I think some examples would serve a good purpose. Atsme☯Consult 07:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Examples of banned and punished editors might work. David Tornheim (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Please include your suggestions on the Talk Page of WP:COIducks and let's see how it works in. Other shortcuts to the essay are WP:Advocacy duck or WP:ADVODUCK Throwing the baby out with the bathwater I appreciate your arguments on Slim's page, but in total, I'm noticing a preference for throwing the baby out with the bath water. Just because there are conflicts and disputes between skeptics and believers, doesn't mean we should toss out skepticism. On the other hand, if certain beliefs can't withstand scrutiny, we should toss them out. How many of us are honest enough to do just that? Not many. Most people cling to bad beliefs like a security blanket. Viriditas (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC) There is a difference between healthy skepticism (such as "buyer beware", "don't take any wooden nickels", avoiding snake-oil salesmen, questioning politicians' vague and grandiose promises, etc.) and skepticism (sometimes called scientific skepticism), prevalent on Wikipedia, which is actually more like a WP:FRINGE religious extremism or cult ideology that too often unreasonably requires knowledge to be of a scientific nature (similar to Pythagoreanism's math cult). Most of academia knows how ridiculous it would be to use science as the one and only metric for knowledge: consider philosophy, history, film, literature, art, ethics, etc. Science and math are very useful tools, but there are limits to such utility and skeptics have trouble looking outside of the box--they are really a lot more like the fundamentalist Christians and other religious zealots and extremists they spend so much time attacking than ordinary people who have a more balanced view of life and knowledge and various forms of epistemology. David Tornheim (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Can you give a single, concrete example of this problem? Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Yes, please read the section where my second accuser speaks: here. The NB where I spoke was filled with it. David Tornheim (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC) There's a lot of issues at work there, but I don't see any that have to do with skepticism. Let me put it another way: if a flood destroys your house, it doesn't mean water is bad. Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Did you read the accusations about Reiki and my defense, or have you seen the various discussions that go on about Eastern Healing practices? Skeptic participants often have no idea what they are talking about in these subjects when they put on their (Western) science as the only form of truth glasses. If they did that with literature or Eastern Philosophy, they would be laughed out of the room. They treat someone like David Gorski as a God or prophet who knows all and is an "expert" in things he obviously knows little about. David Tornheim (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC) I predict that if you look closer at the MEDRS discussions on this and other topics related to complementary and alternative medicine you will find some disagreement. While it is certainly true the so-called "skeptics" will balk at any practice that makes medical or scientific claims when there is little evidence, I think you'll also find many medical practitioners who use them or offer them to their patients. Whether we are dealing with the placebo effect or something else, I can't really say. The best thing you can do is find the best sources and use them to write articles. At my age, I've pretty much found that nobody has any idea what they are talking about, we just go with the best information we have. And that's where the problem starts and ends. Viriditas (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC) ^Exactly!!! With one exception: I think a number of studies and reports from Western medical practitioners looking at alternative healing practices have shown more than placebo effect, many of the skeptics I have encountered here really are not okay with that and will do anything to manipulate the rules to get that possibility out of the article(s), since they are certain a priori that such "pseudo-science" can not possibly work. In their minds, if it is not based on science and pure materialism and materialist explanations, theory, scientific formulas, etc., it is rubbish and worthless. So much for their skepticism of their own deeply felt negative biases and narrow-mindedness! LOL. David Tornheim (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC) May I ask, why you assume that because we cannot explain something, it must not be based on science or materialism? Surely, you will admit, that the scientific framework can be used to understand reality, and that simply because we don't understand one part of that reality doesn't mean science is incapable of explaining it? In fact, there are many things science can't explain, but that doesn't mean they automatically fall under a different paradigm. Viriditas (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Occam's razor comes to mind on this. Science is a terrible way to explain, answer or investigate moral questions (or the other subjects I identified above), agreed? So, then one cannot say that Science is or will be the "best" or "simplest" paradigm in the future to explain what it cannot explain today any more that any other subject will be able to do this and become more dominant: That's all pure speculation. It's possible that some day in the future scientists might be able to apply a kind of Reductionism as has been done with Physics and Chemistry to something like the Mind–body problem, but I wouldn't bank on it, because of so many problems with pure materialism when you study philosophy. It is indeed possible that another field of inquiry will become the dominant method of explanation of all reality and science will be a subset of that: In fact, science of today previously was a subset of Philosophy, and it has taken on a new unjustified religious zeal and it should more properly be returned to a subset of Philosophy because its explaining power is indeed quite limited, but often scientist are not trained in Philosophy and they waste time with that ridiculous movie [[7]] that mostly interviewed scientists and no Philosophers. What they were articulating as "new" was nothing more than a re-articulation of German Idealism or the kind of material that is covered in depth in a class covering Continental philosophy. I would say Postmodernism is actually a far better way to explain all reality of human experience than pure materialist science is. In that sense, Anthropology seems to have the upper hand right now in explaining power, although this will cause a number of skeptics, Modernists, British Analytic philosophers and New Critics to bristle because they do not want to admit that science (or these other related fields) are a cultural construct, just like, say, democracy, language, etc. So to conclude, I think the skeptics should spend some time studying philosophy and other liberal arts, and they might learn the limitations of their close-minded, tunnel vision, science-math color glasses approach to explaining all reality. As a trained engineer in the sciences, I know just how hard that can be for a science oriented person to do! That's why they are called science geeks by normal people! David Tornheim (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC) We're getting seriously off track here. Reiki isn't necessarily a moral philosophy. If it is a form of medicine as its proponents claim, then it should be viewed through scientific methodology. At the end of the day, science is the simplest explanation for the world. That doesn't mean it is always correct. In any case, scientific challenges aren't threats to science, they are questions for how we do science. I'm very curious how anthropology has the "upper hand" on anything, so I find your statement most perplexing. Postmodernism is interesting when it comes to art and design, but claiming that it is a "far better way to explain all reality" is so far from the facts, I wonder if you are feeling OK. Perhaps you should lie down and think a bit more about this. Postmodernism has almost zero explanatory capability. Here's an exercise for you: please use postmodernism to explain something, anything for that matter. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Your analogy of water makes no sense to me. I don't know anyone who is saying water is categorically unsafe, because of floods or because industries dump toxic sh*t into our water supply. But most people I know think drinking clean water is a good thing and sadly many people buy bottled tap water, which they get from drought stricken California! I wish people were a little more skeptical about what the bottled water companies are telling them. David Tornheim (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Water in the analogy is "skepticism". If skeptics destroy your article/argument/belief system, it doesn't mean that skepticism is bad. It means you need to work on your article/argument/belief system. Viriditas (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC) You mean like when a fundamentalist Christian "destroy[s] your article/argument/belief system" by saying that all Truth [capital T] is in the Bible and everything outside the Bible, including science, is not to be trusted? And when they do, does that mean one needs to "to work on your article/argument/belief system" and become a "good Christian"? I'll bet they think so. LOL. By the way, what was that quote(s) from Friedrich Nietzsche you were going to hit me up with? Nietzsche talks much about what I say here about Truth [with capital T] in On the Genealogy of Morality / spark Notes version (full translation by Ian Johnston found here). I know the Walter Kauffman translation titled "On the Genealogy of Morals". David Tornheim (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC) GM Food RFC Note about this RfC where you !voted or commented. I tweaked the statement to make it more clear that it is about eating GM food and health. I'm notifying each person who !voted, in case that matters to you. Sorry for the trouble. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC) A note about pings Hi there, David. I think when you mention other editors' arguments in a thread such as the recent Epoch Times discussion, where the editors don't really need to respond to your comments, and where they are already actively engaged, pings aren't necessary. Normally when mentioning another editor in a thread where they aren't present, a ping is appreciated so that they're aware of the conversation. Best, petrarchan47คุก 00:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC) DuBose Hello. I have given the IP two template warnings for disruptive editing in the past 24 hours. He is being too aggressive and not collaborating enough, and he's flirting with an edit warring complaint that could result in a block. I have asked him twice to slow down. It's not helping that you're doing much the same kind of thing, the difference being that you're reasonable in talk and don't violate WP:AGF. I don't see any reason why the article can't be left stable on these questions until we have a stronger consensus in talk. There is no urgency to make the article right, TODAY. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC) @Mandruss: Sorry about the two edits to the article where I deleted material that I truly believed was unsourced. I messed up there and regret I didn't just talk about it on the talk page first. I'll be more careful next time. David Tornheim (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Discussion Hi, there is currently a discussion at OR noticeboard related to a discussion you attributed to, here. prokaryotes (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC) @Prokaryotes:: Thanks for the notice! Keep up the good work! David Tornheim (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC) ArbCom case You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use. Thanks, -Tryptofish (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC) Re: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case You may want to read about the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee to see how it works. Arbcom doesn't rule on content, only on conduct. As such, you may want to consider amending your complaint, as it focuses solely on a content dispute which is outside Arbcom's remit. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Thanks for your suggestion. David Tornheim (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Does this require closing? Hi David. I am an editor closer. I see a straw poll you started here Talk:Shooting_of_Samuel_DuBose#straw_poll--.22off_campus.22 is listed at WP:ANRFC. Does it require closing? I am only asking as I cant find legobot removing an RFC header in the history. Thanks. AlbinoFerret 15:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Feel free to close it. Thanks. David Tornheim (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC) @AlbinoFerret: I just looked at it again. It was a straw poll and not an WP:RfC, so it does not have requirements of a formal close. However, I think having a neutral third party review the responses and making a summary would be beneficial to readers, especially if the summary is somewhere near the top and you don't mind spending the time on it. Again, thanks for your interest. David Tornheim (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Not a problem to close, just making sure it was needed. I have done polls before that didnt need closing. AlbinoFerret 20:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case. The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)) Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case Was my talk page response useful.... ...or does it need more fleshing-out? Anmccaff (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Immediate attention please David - you have added FOFs at ArbCom under MY section. I think we are only allowed to present FOFs in our own section. I am going to move yours as I am very concerned they will be dismissed if raised in the inappropriate place. I hope this is ok with you - it is usually very bad manners to edit another editors edits - I hope in this instance you will understand me.DrChrissy (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Yikes - I can not find the correct section to move them to. Please move them out of my section or I fear Arbcom might simply put a red-line through all your good work!DrChrissy (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC) I responded on your talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted Hi David Tornheim. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC) ArbCom elections are now open! Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Genetically modified organisms case closed This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: 1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed. 2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions. 3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban. 7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed. 8) Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed. 9) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case. 11) SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed. 12) Wuerzele is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC) Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Genetically modified organisms case closed Thanks Happy new year, and thanks for encouraging my involvement with some of the GMO articles. Time does not permit me to do much editing, but I will keep an eye on what goes on. Hope you will keep up your good work... happy editing... Johnfos (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC) You are welcome. Happy New Year to you as well. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion Hello, David Tornheim. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Thanks. I saw it. I am disappointed that the first time you raised the issue so few took notice. I hope more people see it this time and see the problem you (and others like me) have raised about WP:OR. I will wait to comment since you have already made the case effectively. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Apology I went back through the edit history again and realised I made a mistake. When I went to change your edit back to scientific consensus I accidentally changed the lead sentence. I should have been more careful and apologise to you for any confusion that might have caused. AIRcorn (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC) @Aircorn: Thanks for the apology. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC) No need to strike on my behalf. I was more suggesting that it is easy to make small remarks that could be taken the wrong way. I have been editing GMOs on and off for over four years now and that is a long way down the list of offensive comments I have received. Thanks for acknowledging it though. AIRcorn (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC) You are welcome. You are much easier to work with than some other editors I have encountered who have a different take on some of the most contentious material. I do think things are slightly better after ArbCom. When I wrote that, I had not had as much time working with you and I was a bit frustrated. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC) Thank you for supporting my RfA Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC) You are welcome! I also voted for you for ArbCom as one of my top choices. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Teamwork Barnstar Thanks for backing up my changes on the cases! Im5yrsold (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Hej Hi, well thanks for your input on the discussion at the other article. But i think it is better to just ignore editors who make wild claims. From past experience here, i know that accusations are hard to defend against, no matter of wrong or right. Remember, when fighting with a pig you and the pig get dirty but the pig enjoys it. Cheers :) prokaryotes (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Yeah. I probably shouldn't have gone there. But I felt I needed to stand up against the frivolous accusations against you. I'll try not to get too involved there. I wanted that editor to understand I do not appreciate frivolous accusations. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC) You have to wait until there is clear breach of important guidelines or a pattern of abuse over longer periods. Then you can try a pitch at the noticeboards.But even then it depends on who is online at the right time, or the mood of people there, the amount of requests .... so the best way in my opinion is to make any errors clear and visible, and then move on. I only replied to the guy there a few more times, since i thought he misunderstood something. Have a nice weekend, it getting very spring like here, over 10C. prokaryotes (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Yeah, but even then, you saw what happened with your AN/I. I am amazed what abuse and bullying and even lying are permitted at Wikipedia. I think certain editors want it that way so they can force their POV in the articles unopposed by NPOV editors. Quite troubling. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Yes, but unless Wikipedia changes the way how enforcement works, it will stay that way. And POV of Wikipedia is basically POV of the mainstream media. I remember i had huge issues with climate articles, editors sabotaged these pages over years. But then suddenly it stopped. Today climate articles are only edited by a tiny group of editors, and they mostly agree, since they follow the science. prokaryotes (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Wow. So are saying that the Republican (American) version of climate change was presented at Wikipedia? I assume you must not be in the U.S. since you talked temps in °C. Of course Wiki does go beyond mainstream media now with use of 2ndary sources from the relevant field. I can't remember if that was the case when I joined and the guidlines were slowly being developed. Fringe hardly even existed back then if I remember correctly. Fringe has slowly expanded so that editors regularly use it to dismiss any view that is minority--very problematic. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Pages in regards to the science were sabotaged, you can go back and look at many of these articles, often not famous articles, then numbers got changed, undue weight to studies, old stuff, confusing sections, long paragraphs, external link section filled with unrelated links, even confusing addition of references, to make it harder to edit the page. Basically everything one could come up to make article quality bad, or to piss off other editors. Another related topic was in regards to the scientists involved, and the controversies (Hockeystick or Email hacking), though i wasn't much involved with those edits, but if you look at those page histories you get the idea :) And today all that changed, like someone snipped a finger ... at least for climate science, at last. prokaryotes (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Here is such an example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Instrumental_temperature_record&oldid=656396552 prokaryotes (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Or look at these archives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy :) Its ridiculous. prokaryotes (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Google books When you are at the page you want, left click the link icon to the left of the "Add to my library" button and copy "Paste link in email or IM." It works best if there is no search for keywords showing, otherwise they show up in the link too. TFD (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC) left Nomination of Climate Action Plan for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Climate Action Plan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate Action Plan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. J♯m (talk | contribs) 16:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Since you contributed to the discussion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate action, I wanted to ping you and let you know that your input would be valued. I am posting this notice on the talk page for every editor who has contributed to that discussion and the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avoiding dangerous climate change, regardless of their vote or apparent viewpoint. J♯m (talk | contribs) 16:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Missing word I fixed it. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC) FYI have a look here, at the last bullet. clearly a brainstorming document, not a definitive plan. the whole thing is interesting to read. Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC) I'm not really sure what that sentence means. I also can't tell who was speaking and whether those who were listening agreed with it or not. Not the best meeting notes I have read. I think you and I might agree that it would be nice if their meeting were public, even televised, except for those matters that need secrecy, as is the case with governments. Then we might have some idea what that sentence is really all about. To me it just sounds like marketing hype. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC) It sounds to me like a) the sorely lack leadership from the ED -- there is no way a key team should be drifting like this. b) they see WMF as under a serious threat from third parties re-using content and making them irrelevant, and they are thinking mighty hard about ways to try to stay relevant. It is really interesting. And yes as a technology provider, they could do way, way, WAY cooler tech stuff if they didn't have to deal with us - all that stuff you have been writing about. Forking and setting up their knowledge engine thing at wikipedia.com would let them be a tech company pure and simple. It's just an idea discussed at a brainstorming meeting, but it is the kind of thing that comes out of a very different world than the one content creators live in. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC) Some bubble tea for you! Hi David, thank you for the advice :) Mgdyason (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC) test--David Tornheim (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC) WP:AE Hello, you will note in the instructions for filing at WP:AE that your request should not exceed 500 words without permission from a reviewing administrator. Your recent section alone is almost 500 words. Please scale back your responses as appropriate—the limit is there to prevent the page from becoming excessively ponderous and difficult to deal with, which it is already. --Laser brain (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC) Sorry, I was afraid someone might complain. I think the proposal to TB all the editors should have a separate action or discussion page. That's one of the reasons I did not respond previously. Now that it has gained traction, I am addressing it rather than my complaint. Any possibility of moving the discussion? I don't have time to edit it down right now. Will try later tonight. If you want to revert my last edit, you have my blessing, just cite this discussion. ----David Tornheim (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC) @Laser brain: I collapsed it with this edit. Is that acceptable to you? In the last big GMO dispute at WP:AE here, many of the same editors testified and some, including me, went well over 500 words and used collapse boxes. I don't remember anyone complaining then. The stakes are much higher with the "nuclear option". You might notice until today, I didn't propose TBing anyone: unlike my accusers who are at the ready to TB anyone who disagrees with them on content. I just want them to follow the rules and not be permitted to insist on double-standards on content, sources and behavior. ----David Tornheim (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC) That will have to do for now, as it's certainly not my intention to stifle discussion or discourage those who stand to be topic-banned from speaking up about the proposal. In my view, the AE page is about concise discussion of behavior that may require sanctions. Involved editors should post diffs with brief context as needed. Admins should discuss what should be done. Extended arguments, if warranted, should be in another venue. Prokaryotes is not an exemplar for concise discussion, and I would have had the same request if I had been involved in handling that filing. --Laser brain (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Casting aspersions Your recent remarks that the admins closing the GMO RFC might have COI are not compatible with one of the closing principles of the GMO case here. As stated there, it is inappropriate to make accusations, however indirect, without evidence. Such statements have a chilling effect on editors around you who may want to participate in the RFC in good faith without having their motivations questioned. I urge you to strike your recent request as an act of good will. If you make any other remarks suggesting that editors have a COI without accompanying evidence, in any venue, I will apply discretionary sanctions to you as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC) Proposal 8 Regarding your proposal, did you mean to add it to WT:GMORFC? Having it on an Article Talkpage might be a bit confusing. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC) @The Wordsmith: I want to work with another editor to develop a proposal 8 and not have to be limited by 800 words and be unable to have a threaded discussion, edits to the proposal, etc. It's more like a draft, not a real proposal at this time. If we can come up with something, then it might become Proposal 8, or 9, or 10, or whatever the next number is. First I have to see if the other editor will even take me up on the idea. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Ah, got it. The RFC talkpage might still be a good idea so as to centralize discussion, but it is your prerogative. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC) @The Wordsmith: oh. I was afraid to do any talk there, because of all the complaints about editors going over 800 words, threaded discussion, 0RR and the like. Can you and Coffee confirm for me that it is okay to do all the things I am proposing to do here on the talk page of the RfC? That is: to be able have a threaded discussion, use more than 800 words when discussing with other editors, not be restricted by 0RR or 1RR on the content that me and the other editor are working to develop on the talk page. I agree with you it makes more sense on the RfC talk page. However, I am concerned about additional explicit or implied restrictions on discussion there that might not exist at GMO crops' talk page, where I have been freely able to discuss sourcing and content without any of the RfC restrictions. As I did say at ARCA, I was quite shocked my complaint about serious sourcing problems with the late entry Proposal 6 [8] was met with this response saying my comments about the Proposal were unwelcome. I was shocked especially because all the other proposals, including mine, had months of opportunity for discussion and comment about sourcing, etc., before being incorporated into the RfC, and this late entry had/has very serious problems, and yet, I couldn't say anything about it? Anyway, I want to avoid a repeat of that experience at the RfC talk page. If you can assure me that the RfC talk page has no special restrictions that are not present on the GMO crops talk page, I would feel comfortable moving the discussion to the RfC talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC) @Coffee: Your opinion? The WordsmithTalk to me 21:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC) I think a great workaround would be to create a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms/Proposal workshop which has different rules than the main RFC. I'm open to any ruleset you create for it too. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC) @The Wordsmith: Forgot to ping you. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC) That works for me and sounds even better. It should allow more that one proposal to be discussed. If we could have something at the top that says that the rules of RfC do not apply to the Workshop that would solve my concern. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC) I hope it's OK for me to point out here that I'm pretty sure that the wording of the RfC rules is that the RfC talk page allows threaded discussion and has no word limits, so that is also an option. The rules about word limits only apply to the RfC page itself. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Moving forward I know the result didn't go your way, but I hope you stick around the GMO area. I think you have a lot to contribute still, especially as you have shown an interest in adding and updating content. I do believe wikipedia articles benefit from differing opinions on content, even if the end results don't go the way we want. If you do decide to move to other parts of the project I understand and wish you all the best. AIRcorn (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the support. I have already continued editing on the GMO controversy article. The result of the RfC was no surprise. I was glad that a number of editors read the RS that I provided (in Proposal 4 and Proposal 20) that shows the variety of significant opinions on GMOs by scientists, and scientific organizations, and other scholarly RS. It is not as cut and dry as the AAAS tried to make it in their POV statement, and I think many people who are avid science readers have probably seen the AAAS statement and articles derived from it (or from GMO proponents) in magazines like Popular Science or Scientific American, but those readers probably had not seen the other relevant and reliable RS that shows something else. On the whole, Proposal 1 is an improvement over the language that preceded it, even if I disagree that weight to opposing views is lacking. The language that preceded it gave zero weight to alternative views (only suggesting it by calling it agreement rather than consensus), so at least readers can find it in the RS of footnote 4. Sentence 3 explaining that regulations vary by country is also a big improvement. A number of people were upset with the second sentence. I can see taking out the word "Nonetheless," but the rest is true in the U.S. (The recent Polish study of public views, it was not quite as true.) And I am very glad that the proposed 3 year lock-in of content got nowhere. Again, thanks for the support. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC) I'm seeing that IP editor showing up and reverting you, and it's certainly becoming rather confusing. It would probably be a good idea to just let this content stay as it is, with or without correction, because we won't really know what the correct approach will be until things get sorted out at Coffee's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC) Your post at Talk:Coffee about the IP accusing you of going against consensus. I've replied in the new arbitrary break section. IP hopper, disruptive editing, thinks they are part of an Afghan royal family descended from Saul and with ties to Israel, etc. I almost blocked them but held off. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC) @Doug Weller: Thank you. I was wondering if I should report the IP. I wondered how the IP who had only ~20 edits would know about an RfC. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC) And this makes me wonder if the person behind this has an account which is blocked or banned. Only behavioral evidence could uncover that though, CU won't do it. Doug Weller talk 09:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC) @Doug Weller: I looked over at the article you described. Wow! This edit isn't exactly friendly is it? This is the first real example I have seen of a violent threat on Wiki. Now I see why some editors might desire anonymity. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC) Yes, some similar attacks on my talk page by the same editor using various IPs (all deleted mainly by talk page stalkers). All pathetic. Doug Weller talk 09:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC) Are the stalkers pathetic, or the IPs? -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC) Jury duty You mentioned your interest in a jury duty concept a couple times at Jimbo's talk page. Unfortunately it's in the middle of some back and forth about some other issues, but I'm broadly supportive of a related concept, which I hope you will review. Think of it as a voluntary jury duty concept. Tour of Duty--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC) @Sphilbrick: Thanks for your message! It could be voluntary. There are many ways to go about it. The advantage of making it mandatory--and that would have to be for editors who have a min. # of edits, not brand new editors--that it would be more NPOV. If it's too much of a volunteer, it just ends up being like everything else, right? We don't want self-selected juries, but non-COI, non-involved juries, and yes, who do it as a duty, not for POV reasons. Have you been discussing it somewhere else? I don't know where best to push for it. Village Pump? I imagine this has come up before and I would like to read up on what was tried or considered and why it went nowhere and see if there is a way to move the idea forward. Slimvirgin suggested I take this to, I think, the foundation that was looking for ideas. I need to follow up on her suggestion as well. If you want to take the lead on this, I would support that if we tend to agree, that might make it easier and we can collaborate on how to make it viable... Wikid77 also seems interested. I'd rather work with a team of interested people to start with rather than first try to sell the concept to those who are already skeptical of it. I posted on this a few months back with a number of ideas. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC) Oh I see you have User:Sphilbrick/Tour_of_Duty. I'll take a look at that. Thanks! --David Tornheim (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC) I'm trying to walk the tightrope between mandatory and purely voluntary. This is a volunteer project, and while it may be mandatory to follow certain rules, it isn't mandatory to work in any particular area. If something is made mandatory, many people, myself included, will push back. So if it is voluntary, why is it different than now? The difference is that we create the prestige of having earned a Tour of Duty award. The community has decided what the "dirty jobs" are , and you have stepped up and completed one of them. It could become a contest. In the same way the Guild of Copy Editors runs regular contests, with awards for winners, editors might compete to see who could do the most Tours of Duty, or the most challenging Tours of Duty. My hope is not to make it mandatory for a wannabe admin, but something that would look good on a prospective admin's resume - more so than completing a few DYKs. In many cases, they would demonstrate proficiency in important areas - if you help depopulate a CCI, others can look to see if you have a grasp of copyright policy. If you volunteer to handle a number of disputes in a dispute resolution forum, we will be able to see how you handled a stressful area. It wouldn't have to be mandatory - it enough editors running for admin decided to complete one, the editor choosing to run without one is still eligible, but may have to explain why they didn't step up. The other thing I like about it is that the community could help identify the most pressing problem. It is great that the Guild of Copy Editors runs their contests, and gets editors to help out, but is that our most pressing need? I think the Request Edit backlog is important. I think the CCI backlog is important. You might identify an area that is importnat and maybe I don;t know much about it or why it is imporntat. If we as a community identify some areas and rank them, we can find out which are the important tasks which are not being covered. Obviously, content creation is important, but thankfully, many editors are stepping up to the plate. I'm talking about identifying the areas where people are not stepping up to the plate.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC) Your idea is fine for gaining volunteer experience for one's Wiki-resume. And jury duty could be one element of that. When it comes to all the work that needs to be done, I agree that assigning editors to do just any dirty job will turn people away. The existing system to allow people to choose "dirty" jobs they like seems to work, but yes, I am sure there are backlogs. Jury duty is a bit different, because the idea is a jury of ones peers -- avoiding COI is crucial, far more so than the other tasks you talk of. In the U.S. its guaranteed in the Constitution. At Wikipedia, you are supposed to be judged by your peers, but your peers are whoever shows up. Allowing a lynch mob to "volunteer" to judge the accused is not a "fair trial". Neither is having everyone's friends and relatives make up the entirety of the jury. In the U.S., my understanding is that if you want the right to vote, you agree to be available for jury duty. If you don't want to vote, I think you get out of it. We could have a requirement that if you want certain abilities, once you go past X hundred or thousand edits, you have to step up and and be available for jury duty for a certain period of time. (In California (or just SF), if you are summoned but don't get picked for your jury, you are off the hook for an entire year.) Rather than make it mandatory, another option is that if you want the right to have trial by jury (or perhaps other privileges), you have to serve on a jury first within the last __ period of time. Then it is not mandatory and puts no new burdens on anyone. I'm just brainstorming. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC) (talk page stalker) FYI There is already a "jury service" approach on WP. The WP:DYK article says For every nomination you make you must review one other nomination (unrelated to you)—​​this is called quid pro quo or QPQ. DrChrissy (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC) @DrChrissy: Perfect! Thanks for the info. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC) Thank you Thank you for your contribution to the discussion on Wehrmachtbericht at the NPOV noticeboard. As a follow-up, I posted a link to the Talk pages where it had come up, and it may have helped to sway an editor's opinion, which originally was for inclusion: Wehrmachtbericht transcript. It was great to get input from uninvolved editors, so thanks again. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC) @K.e.coffman: You're welcome. Glad it helped. Too often the noticeboards are filled with involved editors, especially when disagreements are strong/polarized. I hope you can being a similar non-involved comments to disputes you see. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC) AE There is a case where you are a named party at WP:AE. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

David Tornheim is topic banned from the topic of genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons enumerated at the arbitration enforcement request: [9].

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Appeal of Above Decision

I filed two actions appealing the above decision here: action 1, action 2. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."