User talk:SageRad

Welcome!

Hello, SageRad, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Shiftchange (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

gut microbiome and glyphosate

i think i just reverted you for about the fourth time on this. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Not cool with me. Your edits to remove this point strike me as a propagandist agenda. Other people's citation included Huff Post. How is Grist different? You've also removed other posts on the same topic of glyphosate's probable effects on the gut microbiome, and the fact that animals do contain the EPSP synthase molecule, when i did cite more "reliable" sources, i do believe. Why do you do this? What is your agenda? It is very clear that glyphosate can act upon the very microbes in our guts, and that it is present in our guts. This is basic science. I can link to peer-reviewed articles from the 1980s that shows this effect. Actual studies on effects of glyphosate on the gut microbiome have not been done, but the hypothesis is very likely according to the basic science, and the lacuna in the scientific record the notable thing. The Grist article makes this point, and describes reasons why the hypothesis is serious. Please allow it to be referenced. SageRad (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry you are unhappy but I am just telling you how Wikipedia works. You are pretty new here. You cannot add stuff to articles because you think X is true (that is original research which is not allowed here). Everything must be verifiable. (Those two links point to Wikipedia policies). What does "verifiable" mean" It means that there is some "reliable source" out there that says it - that this is really a mainstream notion in the relevant field. For health related matters, reliable sources are defined in WP:MEDRS which was linked-to in my note to you above. Grist is not a reliable source per MEDRS. The whole point of all that - no original research, verifiability, and reliable sourcing - is to make Wikipedia really useful and reliable. These policies and guidelines were developed by the Wikipedia community over the years, to guide itself. Think about what a garbage dump this place would be, if anybody could add any old thing they wanted. And think about the very ugly arguments that would break out. Right? Instead of a Mad Max, wild west kind of place, Wikipedia has a sort of "body of law" that governs what we do and how we treat each other. The spirit of that "body of law" (we actually call it policies and guidelines not "law) - is really beautiful. It takes some time to learn. Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, i can accept that and acknowledge your points. So, if i cite peer-reviewed research paper sources that show that glyphosate does act upon the very same microbes that are in the human gut microbiome, that would be a valid addition, right? I also wonder why the HuffPo sources are allowed if my Grist reference was not allowed. Is HuffPo more valid or is it because the article in HuffPo references more valid sources than the one in Grist? Thanks. SageRad (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks. i do hope you do read MEDRS. you will see that popular media sources like grist and huffpo are not OK for health claims - you need reviews in the biomedical literature or statements by major medical or scientific bodies. we have high standards for sourcing for health claims because they are so important. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Then i will reference peer-reviewed articles to note the likely connection of glyphosate to disruption of the human gut microbiome. SageRad (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not just "peer reviewed" articles. please do read the definitions section of MEDRS. PRIMARY sources are original research papers; SECONDARY sources are review articles. There is a difference, and an important one! let me help you. so, to find anything in the biomedical literature, the best place to look is pubmed.gov, which is a huge index of the literature. So if you go there and search, (see here) you find there are 2 papers on "glyphosate gut bacteria". But what we want are reviews (secondary sources). there is a "filter" function on the left side there, and if you select "review" from article types, you get one result. PMID 24678255. That paper is, in my view, not reliable. The journal is very very low quality, and it is by Stephanie Seneff, a computer scientist at MIT who has gone off the rails on glyphosate. Please see the two discussions of her work linked at the very bottom of the pubmed abstract at PMID 24678255, in the comments section. (the "science based medicine" link there is especially useful) The upshot of all this, is that there are no MEDRS sources to make the kind of claim that you want to make. In other words, the claim is not supported by science, at this time. It may be later, but is not, at this time. So we cannot have content in Wikipedia about this now. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

by the way, this is a conversation we should be having at the Talk page of the glyphosate article. Would it be OK with you, if I copy this conversation there? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

ok, so the content you added at Monsanto was not about health, but rather about biology so MEDRS does not apply there. But in general, we look for secondary sources across the board... it is the secondary literature (literature reviews) that helps us in many many ways to do our work here. We can talk about that, if you want. And really, content about glyphosate belongs at the glyphosate article. that herbicide is off patent and has been for 15 years now, and is sold by many companies. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that, as well, and this makes sense to me. I could also fruitfully spend my time reviewing claims to safety that may be made by reference to review articles, such as those that review feeding studies of glyphosate, to make sure that it is noted that they do not test for health or effects on the gut microbiome in the animals studied. SageRad (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

i want to thank you for being patient as we work through this. at the end of the day, everybody wants our articles to be as close to the truth as we limited humans, working within our limited institutions can make them. with science-based content things tend to be more sane because the literature is so deep and scientific publishing is an institution itself. things get really crazy in articles about things like... say, video games, where the sources are blogs and crap like that. thanks again for hanging in there. please know that the articles about monsanto, glyphosate, GMOs, and all that, have been heavily worked over. there is always room to improve them but it is unlikely you are going to find anything that hasn't been worked over in one way or another. the gut microbiome thing is an interesting angle as focus on that is pretty recent, and i appreciate you bringing it up. i am looking forward to seeing how the science unfolds on that. thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

JYTDOG, i am very displeased with the fact that you are undoing every one of my edits, and i don't think it's justified. Sometimes, it is on a sentence that does not reference any citation, and i know the basic science and then edit it, to reflect the basic accepted knowledge, such as the fact that glyphosate does uptake through roots as well as foliage. Why did you reverse these edits? Tell me simply, with no fancy language, please. And why did you delete my section on correlation to changes in rumen of dairy cows with citation to a peer-reviewed article? Why? I need simple direct explanation. Since when is a peer-reviewed article not an acceptable source? Explain simply please. This was NOT a human medical question. This was on dairy cows. SageRad (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

please don't take it personally. please. as i wrote above, WP:OR and WP:VERIFY are really fundamental policies here, and those two, and our third (and final) key content policy, WP:NPOV, all call for editors to use secondary sources, not primary sources. The 2 content guidelines, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, also call us to use secondary sources. And on contoversial articles, everybody should use the best sources, not just what is at hand.

about you being expert.... you ~could~ be anybody, including WP:Randy in Boise (a mythological idiot child who acts like they know everything) or John Franz. You are anonymous. As am I. Part of what is beautiful about WP, is the radical equality that exists here among editors, andthe same policies and guidelines that apply to all of us. btw, You may want to have a read of WP:EXPERT, which is some guidance for experts who come edit Wikipedia in the field of their expertise. again, please don't take anything personally. the glyphosate article is controversial, and on articles like this everybody needs to go slow and surely. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm really not finding that the reality of the guidelines jives with what you're saying and doing. The page on "what constitutes a reliable source" includes journal articles, and does not specify that they have to be

"secondary sources". I cited a paper on dairy cows and that got removed. That was a report on research that was in a peer-reviewed journal. Is that not an acceptable source?

(exhale) are you really asking me? i am asking because it is not clear to me that you are reading what i am writing and i have a shitload of work to do today in the real world. i am happy to explain but not if you are asking rhetorically.... Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i am asking you, because you are the one removing my edits, and i think that i am doing it alright. I have been reading the links you provided, and i think you're acting strangely based on what i am reading. What i see about primary versus secondary sources are not -- as you say -- that primary sources are not allowed. It's that secondary sources are preferable, and it's not ok for the Wikipedia author to interpret a primary source to their own ends. But it *is* ok to use primary sources, and to describe what they find. You've told me to opposite of that. From the link that you provided: "While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." And then, there is the issue of basic facts in sentences that are not referenced at all but describe basic background knowledge, such as about glyphosate. If a sentence that is not even referenced to a source is incomplete or incorrect, aren't i allowed to edit it, as someone who has been researching the basic science around glyphosate for a while? I think that is the beauty and power of Wikipedia, and you've prevented me from doing so. That is why i have these concerns. I am sorry to use your time, and i am also busy, but you're the one who reverted my edits, into which i put some time to begin with, you know. SageRad (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

yes i am the one removing your edits (although Kingofaces is too now) and it is also true that you are completely new to wikipedia, are working on a controversial article, and are editing aggressively. right? so really, please slow down. as i wrote on the talk page, there were two kinds of problems with your edits. some of it was WP:OR, and some of it was badly source. ok, please see this thing on my user page. Also, please see WP:Controversial articles. The experience of editing this article, is not like editing something obscure, like the article on Chorismate mutase which is the next one in the chain after EPSP. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not completely new to Wikipedia, as i have been using it as a resource for years, heavily, and i have edited anonymously now and then to correct grammar or details about which i know solidly, and have never had an issue like this before. Sure, i guess glyphosate is "controversial" because there is a very heavy vested interest in the industry to maintain a certain illusion about it, to not provide any clues that it may be less safe than they claim, and that may introduce a tension in the results of the page. I suppose in that sense, but the things i've been correcting on the page have been factual points in the basic science about the chemical. I know from using Wikipedia for years that the sources i'm using are reasonable and generally accepted on Wikipedia. That is why i am bothered by your aggressive reversion of my edits. I would not say i am "aggressively editing". I would say that i made contributions and it was strikingly bad feeling how they were reverted and the reasons given for those reversions did not make sense. Primary sources are *not* prohibited by Wikipedia policy. SageRad (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

yes you are clearly are not completely new, that is clear. I cannot speak to other edits you have made in WP nor whether they "stuck" - your edits on glyphosate have been unsourced or badly sourced. And the stuff about glyphosate being taken up through roots (in addition to leaves) -- there is almost no root uptake, based on sources we already use in the article. i don't know why you added that.

about "controversial" - i've worked a lot on articles related to GMOs in the past few years. Most strongly POV edits (unsourced or unreliably sourced with clear POV content) come from editors who are clearly anti-GMO and are adding negative content; i have seen very few (like maybe 10) edits by editors who make bad edits with a favorable POV. It is hard work to keep the articles NPOV and well-sourced; i get flamed all the time. Note - I am not saying that your edits were POV, only that they were unsourced or badly sourced. And yes it is true that primary sources are not prohibited (few things are here), but the policies and guidelines are consistent that secondary sources should be used, and primary sources used only with great care. If the stuff you want to add is really solid, it will be discussed in reviews - there is rarely a good reason to use a primary source. Jytdog (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my edits are meant to be factual. The inclusion or exclusion of facts can be value-laden of course. The frame of an explanation can be value-laden. The claim that animals do not contain the shikimic acid pathway and therefore glyphosate has no effect on animals, though, is not a real fact. It's not true. It's a weasely lie which is in favor of the industry that wishes it to remain the de facto assumption about glyphosate. EPSPS being present in microbes in the human gut means that the human organism has the shikimic acid pathway, in an organismic sense. To be human is to have a gut microbiome. To call it otherwise is, to me, a distortion of the truth that does not serve human knowledge and transparency. As to the "primary vs secondary" distinction, i'm still working on understanding precisely what this means. I get a sense of what it means, and from what i gather, it would tend to make Wikipedia reflect a sense of "scientific consensus" but this can be manufactured by attentive effort by an entity that has an agenda, as has been the case sometimes in the field of climate change study. There may be no review-level paper that reports something important that is reported in a primary research paper. Or, the review-level paper that does mention it may be disallowed by things like your assertion that Seneff papers are not worthy of being cited as sources. I do not like Seneff papers, and i haven't used them. However, who gets to make that determination? Who gets to decide whether a fact is to be reported fro,m a primary source or omitted, or whether a particular source like a Seneff paper is to be excluded from the realm of possibility? [I am going to copy this text to the "Basic Science about Glyphosate" section in the talk page for the entry itself, as i think this ought to be more public of a discussion. If you would reply there, it would make this more public and open, i think.] SageRad (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

wow man you are on a high horse. i am actually glad that you are bringing up the gut microbiome stuff and i agree that there is something potentially interesting there. we (humanity) are just starting to learn about the importance of the gut microbiome and while we have learned some stuff, there is a lot that we don't know yet and there is a lot of wild speculation about it in the popular media and by companies that are already looking to make money off it by selling probiotics and the like. with regard to this particular issue within that field - the extent to which herbicide or pesticide residues on food may be effecting it - that too is very much emerging, and there is also lots of wild speculation about that. we go slow in WP. We are not "cutting edge" here. Please go slow. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I was including basic known facts about glyphosate in the story about glyphosate. SageRad (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at glyphosate

It appears you're pretty new here, so I've leaving this template below to guide you on how we handle content disputes here at Wikipedia and what to generally avoid. Just focus on talking things through on the article talk page or in the section above and you'll hopefully get up to speed without any problems.

Your recent editing history at Glyphosate shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I see that it's gone back and forth once now, and that is where i'll leave it, as i have put comments onto the "talk" page at the glyphosate entry. Is that acceptable? I have questions about how these things work, and i have some issues with the reversions that have been done. I'm discussing this with the person who reverted the edits. SageRad (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sage. You've chosen a difficult place to start editing. Even those with a strong grasp of wikipedia policies can have trouble on articles like Glyphosate, and Jytdog's recent report to the edit warring board suggests the degree to which some people take these articles seriously. I see you've now replied on that board. I advise caution here as taking disputes personally can lead to insults/leveling accusations at specific editors - a quick way to get blocked. It might be in your best interest to edit on other articles for a few days to see how things work in other less-heated parts of the encyclopedia, and to get a deeper understanding of how WP works (and sometimes doesn't).Dialectric (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you on that, but this happens to be an area that i have been learning about intensively, lately, and therefore have some things to offer the general population in terms of knowledge about glyphosate -- and i do NOT mean "original research" but the offering of relevant but little-known facts about the chemical. I take your point, but i also see that the reason why this article is flawed at the moment is precisely because it's a "controversial" article which comes from the fact that a huge vested interest exists in management of knowledge about this topic, and this is what Wikipedia in spirit is supposed to help humans become liberated from. I have indeed now and then contributed to other articles of which i had solid knowledge, and corrected a few minor mistakes here and there on obscure topics relating to microbes or other basic science that i work with. But when it comes to this one, it seems there are serious challenges that seems rather extreme to me. SageRad (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

what "vested interest" do you see at play here, SageRad? Dialectric how does my editing and discussion at Glyphosate demonstrate how Wikipedia "doesn't work"? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a topic around which there are serious vested interests. That is clear. That is why it's controversial, isn't it? There are potential conflicts of interest in this field of study as there is money on the line and there are other important things on the line, like ecology and human health. All of these things drive people passionately toward different goals, sometimes. SageRad (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

that is not an answer, really. glyphosate is generic - if the "vested interest" is Monsanto they would appear to have very little interest in glyphosate per se (they may do, to the extent that glyphosate-resistant crops are still an important part of their business even as that trait has also gone off patent). As i wrote above, most of the conflict and personal attacks in these articles comes from anti-GMO activists. (by the way i appreciate you removing your reference to "fascist" and removing your other personal attack at the glyphosate talk page without being asked to; i do understand that learning how wikipedia works can be frustrating, especially if you come here with burning issues) Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I trust my gut when it tells me something is wrong. Glyphosate knowledge is an area of great vested interest. I know this from experience. SageRad (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

by the way, you should read the humorous essay,. Wikipedia:The Truth. a lot of new editors come here talking about "their gut" and "the truth". it is not a way of talking here, that is helpful to anyone. mostly it is not helpful to you. Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this whole episode has been a huge sham and i don't need you to lecture to me from a high and mighty place that there is no such thing as truth, or that it is something worthy of pursuit and gradual approximation toward. I disagree with the outcome of this tribunal, and did not get any sort of a fair hearing. This is not what i expected from Wikipedia. There was not an intentional "edit war" on my part and i do not think there was a 3-time reversal on any particular point that could be fairly called such. Just so you know. I see thinkgs very differently from you and just because you know the ways & means around here doesn't make you right in a factual or ethical sense of the word. SageRad (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The 3RR complaint has been closed per WP:AN3#User:SageRad and User:Jytdog reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Protected) with 3 days of article protection. If the war continues after that, blocks are likely. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no "war" -- I edited and i learned something about procedures, and i discussed in the talk sections after that became apparent to be the preferred method, and i stated that would hold off from editing the disputed sections when the allegation of an "edit war" came up. I do not like the atmosphere of this place. It's hostile. SageRad (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I have been talking nicely with you and taking an inordinate amount of my time and effort to explain things to you. you have no grounds to claim hostiluty. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not like the atmosphere of this place. I feel it's like walking on eggshells and that people hold power over others in ways that are not right, and use bureaucratic means and fancy language to shut down real pursuit of accuracy. I didn't ask you to donate your time to block my edits and then launch an investigation into a supposed "edit war". SageRad (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

yes, SageRad, hell is other people. And in Wikipedia, it is other people, all the time. As i wrote to you way, way above, there is a lot to learn about this place. if you take the time to learn how it works, it can really be beautiful. you really try to communicate with other people, and base discussions on policy, guidelines, and sources. it can be exhilarating. i will tell you that things get the most difficult when people arrive here with a really strong POV and their goal is to content reflecting that POV into the article, first and foremost. not starting with the mission of Wikipedia, not starting with sources, but starting with their own ideas about what they want. that is pretty much you in this case. i have been trying to ask you to go slow and learn how this place works, and start with sources. I hope you will start doing that. Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i can chuckle with you on that thought. Still, i really was only attempting to edit the article to reflect some basic facts about glyphosate, how it works, and what it affects. If it were something less "controversial" then i think it would have all been fine. If i were correcting some aspect of an article about Geobacter spp. and electrogenic metabolism, because it's an area of my expertise, i doubt there would have been opposition to using a primary research paper to note a fact. I am committed to accuracy, and i know i make mistakes as do all people, and love the concept of mutual co-editing and checks and balances. I understand that glyphosate is a primary interest of an industry that does pay a lot of attention to what people say about the science around it. I've noted this already in my discussions with people in various forums. It can be rough going. Anyway, here's to three days of peace and quiet, Jytdog. Cheers. SageRad (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

you keep skipping right over my telling you that the most hellacious editing in these topics has come from anti-GMO activists. they come here with that as their primary interest. that is true. it is bizarre to me that you are acknowledging this. anyway - another thing about how Wikipedia works. The point of page protection, is that editors are forced to discuss content on the Talk page. That is why i listed the article at 3RR - to get it locked down and drive discussion on the Talk page. If there are further changes you want to make, would you please use this time to suggest them - and their sourcing - on the talk page, so that we (you, me, dialectric, and anybody else who cares) can talk through them, before they go into the article? That is not normal, but that is what happens in situations like this. Would you please consider that? Again, that is what this time of protection is for -- it is why Wikipedia has it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge you saying that about anti-GMO activists. I have seen blatant disregard for facts from people on both "sides". I would prefer to avoid sides altogether and look at the science to discern what is real from what is fiction. I've seen anti-GMO fanatics calling people names and citing studies that are blatantly irrelevant to the question at hand -- for example, using studies that test full formulation Roundup to try to assert that glyphosate alone has a certain effect on cells. I have also seen pro-GMO activists call people names, and cite studies that are blatantly irrelevant to the question at hand -- for example, referring to a chimerical wall of animal feeding studies to assert the safety of glyphosate, when on further examination, most of the studies on Roundup Ready feed do *not* include glyphosate in the feed, and even among those that do, none of them do any assessment of gut health other than a visual glance at the intestines after dissection (along with basic clinical assays). So, i guess i've seen it from both "sides". On the other hand, i have had amazing conversations with people on both "sides" who were good participants in dialogue. I have learned a great deal from certain people who were clearly pro-GMO in bias, but who took the time to look at evidence carefully, and to speak carefully and respectfully. I also recognize in myself an occasional tendency to get my hackles up, and to prejudge some people as being more oppositional than they are, from dealing with seriously low attacks by other people -- a problem of deaggregation of individual, by another name, the formation of prejudice.

I also acknowledge with respect your invitation to use this time to discuss possible changes to the page, and i think that i will, starting tomorrow morning. I'm a little too burnt out today to continue right now, though. Thanks, Jytdog. Maybe we can get along and make this a more accurate and complete page. SageRad (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

lord knows we need more science-based editors, solidly grounded in policy and guidelines, working on these articles. i look forward to talking with you tomorrow. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

SageRad, now that the page protection is in place, it won't be lifted until the 3 days are up, and arguing over the protection will not be productive. I appreciate that you may have specialized knowledge of glyphosate, but I imagine you could find other articles to add to if you do some searching. If you are interested in this I can point you to some wikipedia resources for newer editors. Part of the problem here is - being highly focused on one article or narrow set of articles sometimes raises a red flag for long time editors. It can be seen as pushing a specific point of view, and whether or not the view is supported by good sources, a better approach if you have the time is to learn about wikipedia by working on a range of things without getting to invested in any one debate.

Jytdog, in answer to the above, 'how does my editing and discussion at Glyphosate demonstrate how Wikipedia "doesn't work"?', what I said was that editing around the encyclopedia, rather than just on Glytophosphate, would give Sagerad an understanding of how WP works and sometimes doesn't. I was not pointing to Glytophosphate as an example. I think you will agree that there are times wikipedia doesn't work or doesn't work smoothly - hoaxes, COI and copyvio articles that stay up for years, discussions that devolve into personal attacks, etc. I think a new editor can learn both from seeing the implementation of policies and the limitations of policy.Dialectric (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Dialectric, i can appreciate all that you've said there. I wanted to simply voice my disagreement with the decision, although i accept it, of course, and i was already not editing anymore until further discussion anyway. This is an interesting mechanism. I can see that some articles will be highly contested as there will be interested parties with different perspectives and different goals in editing an article. SageRad (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Your Glyphosate technical Question

Do you mean notified of page changes on your watchlist or by email? Each article should have a watch/unwatch tab at the top, and if this says 'unwatch' you are already watching the page. There are also a number of relevant settings in the preferences menu on the top right of the wikipedia page for logged in users. Preferences -> watchlist tab and Preferences -> Notifications should cover what you are looking for.Dialectric (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Dialectric, thank you. I did check and had the Talk and the main article marked for "watch" and i was referring to receiving the notifications on the Wikipedia page itself on the top bar near my username. Somehow it hasn't been showing up like it did before. Your message on my talk page did show up just now on the top bar, however, and i also did receive and email.

Also, am i doing this right in terms of replying to people? Should i be indenting by one more than what i'm replying to, and then signing the last paragraph? Like this? Thanks for your help. SageRad (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I see - you only get notifications like that three ways. 1 is if someone writes on your talk page (this page). 2 is if somebody "thanks" you for an edit. The third is if someone "pings" you like this SageRad anywhere in Wikipedia - that will also give you a notification. (Quick note on that - the "ping" only works if there is a fresh signature with it (the four tildas). if you misformatted the ping and notice that only after you save your edit, they will not be pinged if you fix it and resave; if you fix it, you also have to sign again. So the times you received notifications were times that you were pinged -not when someone edited the article or the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

if you just type someone's name like this - SageRad - they are not notified, btw. Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thank you very much, Jytdog. I understand it now. What a place this is, Jytdog.... trying out the pinging thing on you. So am i using the indentations correctly? I guess so, if it's just for formatting purposes and not to ping. And i guess to keep aware of changes on watched pages then i need to go to my watchlist page. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

yep i was pinged - and you will be notified by this comment, b/c it is here on your Talk page. and yes you are understanding indenting, signing, pinging, and watchlists. the logistics that take a bit of learning to master and can be so baffling. hooray! Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Monsanto etc

SageRad - Different areas of the encyclopedia have different cultures, and as a controversial subject, Monsanto discussions can be particularly contentious. You might find looking through the archive of discussions on Jimbo Wales (cofounder of wikipedia)'s talk page useful. It is the place where big picture issues like those you mention in your Monsanto comment are most often discussed: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. The essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth might be of interest, as well.Dialectric (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Dialectric. I appreciate the pointers. I did find a section called "How our "Due Weight" and "Proportioning" policies have degraded some articles" on the Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view page that seems to discuss these issues. Is this what you had in mind for me to look at? I fully support verifiability, but i worry about the framing and weight given to various aspects of topics in terms of struggles by groups with different agendas. I'm also concerned about the nature of consensus as used by some people who urge compromise on what the facts are, or what facts are included or excluded, and sometimes the way that very strict interpretation of guidelines can limit the usefulness or completeness of articles. SageRad (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, you edited my talk page to add indenting on my above comment to Dialectric -- what's that about? Is that a signal like "I have seen what you wrote?" SageRad (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

no, it means that your page is now on my watchlist, that I read what you wrote, saw it was misformatted, and fixed it. i thought about writing, but didn't. but in light of your comment, i will write now what i was going to then, since your comment is right in line with it... you are kind of overthinking things and you are writing about your overthinking on article talk pages. There is a reason why assume good faith is a pillar here, and why so, so many of the policies and guidelines are focused on the surface of things - one content, sources, policies, and guidelines. Anonymity allows people to speak freely here and is a very deeply held value in the community, but it also can breed paranoia. AGF is meant to be a bulwark against that. (please think about that) I wrote to you way, way early in our interaction, that this this place is very well thought out, on a very deep level, in such a way that this place can be beautiful when people fall in line with its vision (you saw some of the kind of interaction that is possible here on the Glyphosate talk page). Policy X can cause Y kind of reaction, so policy Z arose to correct that or guideline W arose to give nuance. The structure of PAG is also beautiful. But there are also still some pitfalls that people can fall into... and you are falling right into one. For what it's worth, i advise you to keep it simple. "Verifiability not truth" is advice along the same lines. The thing to aim for, is well sourced, NPOV, encyclopedic content. Try to write it, and when others differ, talk about it with them, simply and directly, based on sources, policies, and guidelines. please leave Truth and speculation about other editors' motivations out of it. Jytdog (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I assume probable good faith in a new person, and then i judge a person's character by their actions. There must logically be a point at which "assume good faith" no longer applies, as people do get banned from Wikipedia for vandalism and impetuous edit warring, don't they? After first contact, then people are being judged by their actions to a degree. That's a fact, isn't it? Do you disagree with this? Do you think that any judgment of a person by their actions is forbidden in Wikipedia-land? Trying to clarify your meaning. SageRad (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, i found this on the Assume Good Faith page: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." One must use one's judgment and not be paranoid, is what i take from that essay. SageRad (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

people get blocked based on their behavior, not on why they do things. we cannot know why people do things. (i'll add here, that it is really, really interesting to read the drama boards. this place is a laboratory of human behavior. it is amazing how often people get all mad at other editors and bring something to ANI, and end up with the case turning against them, and action being taken against them, because they have no idea how wrong they are -- in other words, editors often don't even understand themselves, much less other people.)

please focus on content and sources and whether they comply with policies and guidelines; focusing on what might or might not be motivating other editors is missing the mark - that is the pitfall you are falling into. going down that path leads to no where good. Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey man, chill with the telling me what to do. SageRad (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)