User talk:Jytdog

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Khimaris (talk | contribs) at 09:12, 1 April 2014 (→‎MEDRS suggestions.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Jytdog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Edcolins (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Notifications

Shiatsu

I penned a well referenced article citing reports made by recognised university's in the uk. I also cited an independent report commissioned by the NHS and a revision of a report already cited. A wholesale reversion I feel is entirely unsatisfactory and misleading in a place where a balanced view is needed surely the opinions cited represent people who have experienced the treatment and not editors with an axe to grind against alternative medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohanww (talk • contribs) 17:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these are very very hard topics. But we do need to follow WP:MEDRS for health related claims, and we cannot use self published sources for anything really. I agree that Shiatsu article needs improvement! Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MY SOURCES ARE NOT SELF PUBLISHED THEY ARE WELL RESEARCHED PAPERS BY ESTABLISHED UNIVERSITIES. I AM IN NO WAY AFFILIATED TO THE SHIATSU SOCIETY AND HAVE NO VESTED INTERESTS IN SHIATSU. I DO KNOW PERSONALLY A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BENEFITED FROM SHIATSU INCLUDING MY DISABLED DAUGHTER WHO HAS CEREBRAL PALSY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohanww (talk • contribs) 22:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't yell at me. I am glad that your daughter was helped - whether it was Shiatsu per se, or if any careful massage would have done, I cannot know. But i am glad she was helped. From what you write, it appears that you don't understand what reliable sources are for health related content - please do read WP:MEDRS. MEDRS is fully based on the general sourcing policy here at Wikipedia, which you can read here WP:RS. A section within RS, describes what a "self-published source" is - you can get to that section directly here: WP:SPS. The "self" part of that doesn't refer to the editor who uses it, but rather the folks who write and publish it. Also, you are clearly passionate about Shiatsu. That is great, but please do not use Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy - please see WP:ADVOCACY, All content on Wikipedia has to follow our policies and guidelines. Everybody is welcome to edit here, but everybody has to follow the policies and guidelines here too. Every world has its rules. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of mediation

Instead I am starting with mediation, I have named you as a party in this case. Here is the link to the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Daniel_Amen You might also want to check your Wikipedia related email.

Thanks,

Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk • contribs)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Daniel Amen". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 March 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hand wavy

There is nothing hand wavy in what I said: "Nothing says it only applies to articles about fringe subjects, it talks about when fringe content appears." If you disagree show wording that says otherwise, or even ask at WP:FTN. It should be readily apparent on reading WP:FRINGE that it is not just about fringe articles but principally about undue promotion of fringe theories where ever that may be. Second Quantization (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That, I actually agree with! As I wrote in my description of how I wish the article to be structured.. description of the protocol and the results and the consequences are not descriptions of acupuncture itself - it wouldn't matter if what was being tested was a small molecule drug, a medical device, a standard surgical procedure (nerve sparing prostatectomy) or acupuncture. It should very much be framed with the mainline scientific view about acupuncture, for sure! There should be a section on the intervention that should definitely state the mainstream view - that acu is FRINGE. That is "when fringe content appears." I am having a hard time seeing how the protocol, outcome, and consequences themselves are fringe and you are not providing any grounding in the policy for naming them as such.... Jytdog (talk)
Maybe we are coming at cross purposes here. It is not the outcome I am describing as fringe or protocol I am describing as fringe, but the acupuncturist interpretations about it would be opinions from the fringes. The article is the subtopic of a fringe theory. Second Quantization (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i'm completely confused now. :) It sounds like we do agree. I would just like us to get on the same page, as to how to shape the article so that we it can get settled already - these trials happened almost 10 years ago and it is goofy that there are such battles still raging! I think I am going to try to create a re-draft of the article in a sandbox and then show everybody what I think it should actually look like.... Jytdog (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Touching Base

Hi, I just wanted to thank you again for the tips the other day. I was pretty tied up for the last two days, but I'll be able to post now over on the Dan Amen talk page.
I just saw the "Biography of Living Persons" notice over there and wanted to say that I don't know that person and have never communicated with them before.
One positive development that I see, from my point of view, is that the word "condemned" has been removed from the article opening. I thought that was overstepping. I think the word "criticism" is a good substitute because he is receiving a lot of that.
Anyway I'll start trying to negotiate differences with those guys over there as per your suggestion. Thanks again!
Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome. Thank you for being open to talking! Jytdog (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not biting the newbies...

I'm the professor for the students (User:Jfriend2 & User:Estephe9) working on the Human cloning article that you commented on here. I initially hesitated to accept their choice of articles because I've avoided controversial topics in my previous WP assignments, but our ambassador (User:Biosthmors) encouraged us to be bold, we all agreed that this article would be improved by adding some science, and I have some great students in my class (unlike some of the classroom problems I've heard about). We discussed your comments and I suggested that, after they have beefed up the science in the article, it would be appropriate to poll the WP community with a suggestion to fork the "Laws" section into a new article and just leave a summary paragraph. We'll certainly need some help with this since I'm not sure of the proper etiquette and guidelines for forking articles, especially since there are 5 different WikiProjects listed on the talk page that may have different guidelines. The first assignment to add content to the article itself is due next Tues, with a peer-review from their classmates due the following week. Any feedback, suggestions, or corrections you might have would be welcome and appreciated. Biolprof (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out! it was SO REFRESHING to deal with those two... so, so many students have zero desire to engage with the community and you must have done something very right to sensitize them to the context in which they are operating. I am watching the page and whenever it becomes clear that the time to consider splitting out the legal stuff is ripe, all they have to do is mention that on the Talk page. We can talk through whether we should just do it, or have an RfC (which i don't reckon will be necessary). Doing the split is easy and there is no rush. Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for editing your comment on Talk:Daniel Amen

Sorry for indenting your comment on Talk:Daniel Amen. You were right to revert me. I was under the impression indents were used more to distinguish who was speaking. In general I feel it is not a good idea to touch anyone else' comments, I shouldn't have done so in that case. Thanks for the explanation in your edit summary. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i hear you on the sacredness of other editors' comments! thanks for reaching out - no offense taken and i am glad you feel the same. :) Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My withdrawn comment

HI, I withdrew my comment on overmedication because I was worried that it would be misunderstood. Thanks, Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On your COI postings

I saw the COI disclosure conversation here and am 100% confident that there is no conflict of interest on the part of Jytdog. In fact I never did feel that way. Working at a University is not, by any stretch, a conflict of interest with anything specific that goes on in private industry.Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A question regarding BLP

Hi. I note your recent change on the Mercola page, and it prompted a question I wondered if you might help me with. (Unsourced content)

It was mostly accurate, but the only thing I could find about the closure of the mercola wellness centre was in the Google cache. It appears that the wiki is now inaccurate in that it has closed, but we can't say so because we don't have a RS? Am I understanding correctly? Thanks. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Now that I've read the edit properly, the question is rather inappropriate. My bad. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Process to upload copyrighted Photo

I would like to insert a main picture for the Human Cloning article. I found this picture on google and have contacted the person who holds the copyright, he is willing to let me use it. I was wondering if you have any advice on this process or have gone about using a copyrighted photo for a wiki article??Jfriend2 (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

here you go Help:Introduction_to_uploading_images/1 Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Daniel Amen, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Letting you know

FYI. I mentioned your talk page in my complaint on the administrator noticeboard [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyc12 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 23 March 2014‎

thanks for your consideration.Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well done

We have had our differences...as have you and many of my closest wiki-friends. But, I would like to commend you on the manner in which you handled User:Cliffswallow-vaulting. So often these "New editor misunderstandings" can turn out bad. The New Editor leaves in a huff, never to return. Your nurturing and understanding kept the editor involved and eventually able to see the path out of the forest. Well done! ```Buster Seven Talk 18:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is very kind of you! I know that you have a lot of experience welcoming new users and a compliment from you on that front means a lot. So thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar
To Jytdog for his admirable and diligent work combating bullshit by bringing balance and sound sources to controversial and difficult articles related to food production – Epipelagic (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!! That is very kind of you. Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning again?

Hi Jytdog, I just wanted to notify you it looks like the Syngenta "scientist allegations" issue may not be settled after all. Binksternet added another couple sentences expanding on Hayes' allegations, so I added a couple sentences expanding on Syngenta's response. It may be worth watching. Honestly, I don't think either of the additions are warranted, but if one is going to be there, the other needs to be as well. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's devolving into an edit war. I'm trying to find common ground, but I honestly believe Binksternet is showing bias on this. Adding a second paragraph so that Hayes' problem with atrazine, and allegations against Syngenta, are detailed twice, while repeatedly undoing any reference to Syngenta's response due to it being "a biased primary source", seems very biased to me. Either both need to be stated, or neither. I have tried accommodating him; most recently I went to a third party source to make the same counterpoint. If it doesn't stand, we may have to go to arbitration. Jtrevor99 (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it has devolved into an edit war report. I had hoped we could reconcile our differences without taking that approach or going to arbitration, but it seems unlikely now. I apologize in advance for any inappropriate action (in your opinion) that I have taken, and I also apologize if I manage to drag you into this mess. If you do believe I behaved inappropriately at any time, please tell me so I can learn from my mistakes. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
looks like that flurry settled itself. i have the articles on my watchlist and am thinking about them. there are a lot of steps between a content dispute and arbitration. please remember that wikipedia is going to be here a long time, and nothing is urgent. the main thing is to try to reach consensus, always. hang in there. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's settled (for now). The admins weighed in and declared we were both guilty of 3RR; they locked the page for a week. I've posted a request on the Edit War and Incidents pages for clarification on what the admins would have done, as I believe there was a conflict between WP:BALANCE, WP:BALASPS and possibly WP:WEIGHT in this case. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See...

... your edit. Both edits had to be undone, not just one. --Edcolins (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS suggestions.

How did any of my suggestions substantially differ from the policies of no original research or reliability?

1. Extensively qualifying primary and animal model studies instead of reflexively deleting them. Secondary sources are ideal but not absolute. 2. Instead of using terms like "weak", "no good" or "good" evidence actually state the numerical benefit derived by a particular treatment compared to active or passive placebo. It is undeniable that terms like clinically/statistically significant are social conventions. This is simply reality. 3. Recognize that the currently used hierarchy of scientific journals is again a social construct with it's own particular problems. I have faced this several times where my source is denied because someone else had a "better" article from a "better" journal. It's just coincidental that their sourced article was inline with their own personal biases... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khimaris (talk • contribs) 22:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for talking, Khimaris. I appreciate your questing spirit, but Wikipedia, as it has been constructed, is not a site that will change the world; Wikipedia reflects the world. If you want to change Wikipedia so that Wikipedia will work to change the world, you need to start far deeper than MEDRS - you need to start with the very pillars of Wikipedia and work up from there. There are lots of other sites where you don't have to fight such a deep and protracted battle to write the kinds of things you want to write, right away. To answer your questions:
  1. This I answer with a question. Would you please explain how extensively qualifying primary sources is not WP:OR?
  2. Wikpedia is meant for the masses, for your average joe. Please see WP:TECHNICAL as well as sections 7 & 8 of this part of the 1st pillar. We therefore don't present mounds of data; we say things in plain English.
  3. Yep. There is a social construct and Wikipedia is very, very solidly enmeshed in it. We describe what is as best we can, using the best sources we can find - sources produced by the best institutions that society has built to carry out the scientific method and the historical method (our best tools for grasping reality as objectively as humans can); we do not right great wrongs and we have no crystal ball.
There you go... Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't original research to explicitly state the limitations of a paper that it openly states. When was the last time you read a peer reviewed article that didn't state it's own limitations?
It isn't overly technical to state something like 60% of people typically respond to a particular treatment. I can't imagine a literate person not understanding this.
Per WP:RGW I'm not engaging in activism for any particular issue. And per crystal ball I'm not engaging in unverifiable speculation. Every addition that I have made thus far has followed the stated and explicate content policies of Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I refuse to be beholden to the arbitrary foolishness of people saying, "My source is better" or "It was better before" whenever a conflict arises. I think you're learned enough to realize the extensive limitations and inherent biases of the currently existing academic hierarchy.
I think you are all misunderstanding where I'm coming from. So I'll state my biases. I'm an egalitarian transhumanist health nut and nerd who gets his flu shots every year and supports the use and deregulation of GMFs as a harm reduction strategy. I'm not afraid of science or the scientific method. I simply find the way information is being disseminated to be deeply troubling for the previously stated reasons.Khimaris (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of what you write is reasonable, and to be frank, some is over the top. Your intensity and urgency are making it difficult to have a rational conversation. Can you even see it? Where is that coming from? (those are both real questions about you (not about others); they are not rhetorical questions) Jytdog (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really want to emphasize this to you, Khimaris - both the spirit and the letter of the policy, WP:RS and the guideline WP:MEDRS call us to reach first for secondary sources, read them carefully, and base content on them. You need a really good reason to work against that and rely on primary sources instead. This is a fundamental Wikipedia thing, and it does you no good, and makes you look less than credible, to blow past that, as you have been doing. When you are asked why you are going against Wikipedia's reliance on secondary sources, if you want to have a rational conversation, you need to answer positively; "why not" is a bad answer - an irrational answer - and is a sign that you have an ax to grind and are not working toward the best interest of the encyclopedia. I am not saying that you do have an ax to grind; I am describing how you are coming across. I wish you would calm down, and respond carefully and clearly as to why primary sources are justified where you want to use them. I understand that you have an issue with the spirit and letter of Wikipedia's policy on this matter, but fighting against policy when working on specific content is going to create nothing but misery for everyone involved. Nobody wants that. Jytdog (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Part of it is pride and part of it is a general disgust for the arbitrary nature of the wiki-hierarchy. I could spend a good three hours of my day happily reading pubmed, both primary and secondary sources, about some particular condition or treatment. I then make a small addition or rewording to the wikipedia article in question, that is fully inline with the various rules and regulations. In some cases the edit is reverted and I am condescended to and told to follow some rule the author pulled out of their ass. I've looked at the edit logs of these articles. It's typically the editor with the most extensive additions. They "own" the article. And they don't want their hard work that's earned them so many internet points to be changed. It's disgusting and childish.
It's hard to take consensus building seriously when the consensus is usually "Don't make significant changes my pet project". So this makes me "intense" and I "urgently" want this behavior to stop.
On the subject of primary sources: I prefer the addition of new qualified information. (Qualifying isn't original research by the way)Someone mentioned the idea of not adding primary sources at all because they are sometimes non-reproduceable. To this I say so what? The current practice of science will eventually find the right conclusion. There are enough PHDs and grad students fighting over funding to ensure this. Are you really saying that the Eventualist and Inclusionist editing tendencies are invalid and that people, like me, who subscribe to them have no place here? Khimaris (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Lipoic acid". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 00:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog&oldid=602241546"