Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:09, 23 April 2014

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Special:Notifications

Sockpuppetry

Regarding your work on edits by Haydee Belinky, know that Ariel Fernandez had his accounts on wiki locked due to sockpuppetry. Perhaps he has a new moniker? He has used a related name for his seeming sockpuppet reviews on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Transformative-Concepts-Drug-Design-Wrapping/product-reviews/3642117910/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.185.122 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Environmental impact of pharmaceuticals and personal care products

Jytdog, Your statement that Milorganite is fertilizer is correct. However, the pharmaceutical and personal care waste stream has a very real impact on the waste stream, and is interrelated to it. I don't want to get into an edit war over relevancy, as I tend to view that as being in the eyes of the beholder. However, the readers of wikipedia could better make that decision on their own, and may not know of that facet of the problem, if it isn't in this article. The reference to the problem are in the Milorganite article (perhaps you missed that). So I am asking you to reconsider. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

p.s., you and I share much in terms of world and wikipedia viewpoint. I liked your WP:User page. I am also a proud owner of Frankfurt's book, "On Bullshit". 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

i see your point on the link - i self-reverted. nice to find a kindred spirit! :) Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. The alternative is that we could edit this directly into the text with sources. The persistence of drugs even after being filtered, eaten by microbes, aereated, and then oven-baked is a real problem, and it hardly has standards or solutions. In doing my massive editing, I learned more about Milorganite than I ever wanted to know. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	The way it's supposed to be done. The Medium Is the Massage — Marshall McLuhan. Would that we could all be so good all the time. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

I am the IP user you mentioned on the Ken Ham talk page. That is how I feel too but I didn't know how to type it. Very well said. Thank you for being part of the solution. Nicholas 107.178.45.20 (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice

Hi Jytdog just letting you know that Collect unilaterally opened an RfC Talk:Ken_Ham#RfC_by_Collect thus making your section about a new proposal somewhat irrelevant since that is surely going to attract all the attention now. I personally would've prefered discussing it in the section you opened but that's apparently not an option anymore. Just a heads up. Regards. Gaba 02:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

yep saw it. thanks for the headsup tho. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Note

Just wanted to tell you that I saw what you posted here and that I can appreciate your attempt to try to get people thinking about the problem in a different way. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! That Talk page is a real battleground. ugh. I appreciate your efforts to reach consensus too. folks are just too busy staking their ground.... Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Requesting Guidance

I am new to the Misplaced Pages community and would like to reach out to more experienced contributors to collaborate on multiple pages with the possibleneed to editing regarding the relevance of synthetic biology. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.Lgkkitkat (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to help but your question is too vague. Would you please clarify what you are asking? thx Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for you response! This was just a basic request - I'm still trying to figure out my way around the Wiki community. New genetic engineering methods, namely synthetic biology, aims to provide standardization of DNA nucleotide sequences to create or modify living cells existing in natural biological systems. Do you think you can tell me your thoughts on how to integrate this and other basic principles the genetic engineering page?Lgkkitkat (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Human cloning

I appreciate your concern, but the entire section consists of reports from primary sources (and in a couple cases the report that it was later proven fraudulent). Indeed this is the first time anything from a previous report has been verified by a second group of scientists yet you are giving it the least weight of any report.

There is no reason to delete the details of the most recent report while leaving the details of the others. If you think some specific detail in unnecessary then remove it, but there is no need to remove the entire report. Details do not make something appear more credible - they simply provide more information. Two paragraphs out of a very long article is very little weight indeed, and similar weight as given to past reports. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewrite leaving the important details but removing the objectionable parts. It looked fine to me, but a third editor didn't like part of it, so I rewrote it again. I didn't add back anything you removed, just reworked what you left, but feel free to take another look to make sure it is fine by you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Replied on article talk. Sorry for the double message --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Nicotine

Hi Jytdog,

Would either of these sources be suitable as a secondary source?

• http://fds.duke.edu/db/Sanford/ccfp/kolli001
• http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/9/784.abstract

If so, I will add the good-faith edit to the article. Robert4565 (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking! There are 2 main sources of reliable health information - one is a review article published in the biomedical literature; the other is a statement by a major medical or scientific body (in this case, somebody like the APA or the NIH/NHS or the like). To find reviews, go to pubmed, (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed), out in your search terms, (in this case something like "ADHD "nicotine withdrawal"), click search, and then select "review" from the filter at the left. here is the result. not much there. in cases like this, i do not think it is wise to add this content now - we need to wait and see if it holds up. the reason for this is explained in MEDRS but it boils down to biology - human biology in particular - being very tricky, and what one primary source says is true, another will say is not true... we need experts in the field to write reviews to sort this out for us. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

sorry i didn't directly respond to your question - no, neither of those are reliable secondary sources under MEDRS.... Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For removing "hype". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Excellent post on MEDRS board with the references to the coffee articles in the NYTimes! One of best comments I've seen in quite some time. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Stem cell research and human cloning

Thank you for your recent efforts in clarifying the human cloning-related news. These kinds of situations arise once in a while because, when fine scientific/legal/political details are involved, misunderstandings are almost a cetainty for the average reader. In this case the image was further obscured by PR language. As a result, human-cloning was implied in the news item even though no DNA copying happened. When I first read it, I vaguely suspected that there was some distortion involved, because I know that science can be really difficult to be "dumbed down". After I read the corrected version, I was really happy to see that someone took the extra mile and showed the editors how to be less vague. Then I read the discussion. No DNA copying? This is not a distortion, it's a corruption of the communication signal. Thanks again for you efforts! Nxavar (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your kind note! science writing is hard and i do appreciate the efforts of the ITN team to make WP go... it take everybody. Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thank you for taking the time to reach out to me today. It is highly appreciated.Johnvr4 (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

you are welcome. i don't like to see everybody suffer so much. WP doesn't have to suck! Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Question about Wiki

You're very knowledge about Wiki and I wanted to know if you could tell me what a notification saying someone reviewed your user means?Hardkhora (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

it means nothing - see User_talk:Tryptofish#hello. :) Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you a lot, that cleared that up. "...there was a little blue link at the bottom right corner of the page saying, "Mark this page as patrolled". I clicked it, and that's what gave you the notification."Hardkhora (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Civility

I agree with you when you say on your User Page that Civility "is crucial for successful interactions among editors trying to write articles ... we have to work together - we have to see and acknowledge each other - to get anything good done ... civility is all about behavior -- it has nothing to do with who you are or what you believe; what matters is what you write, and how you write it. Civility is what makes this ultimate democratic space possible ... The best interactions are characterized by competence and civility ... Of the two, only one is a pillar. Civility. If editors work in a spirit that acknowledges the other's validity and one's own limitedness - if they assume good faith - a consensus can be reached, eventually. Take civility away, and there is no chance."

But I disagree with how you practice what you preach. I refer you to the Misplaced Pages Policy Page on Civility (shortcut WP:NICE). "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Among other things, WP:NICE says: "Try not to get too intense", " Take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy", "Be calm", "don't make snide comments", "don't make personal remarks about editors", "don't be aggressive", "no personal attacks", no "rudeness, insults, name-calling", no "belittling a fellow editor".

I quote back to you verbatim et literatim some recent remarks you'd made to me and to other editors (f.e A1candidate, Khimaris, Nigelj, TimidGuy), not only on our User Talk Pages, but also on the Talk Pages of Articles, where you yourself said they don't belong (diff). I'm certain that if I dig deeper I will find many more examples, but I think these suffice to illustrate my point (I was going to organize them according to the nature of their incivility, but there are so many (38) of them that I had to resort to mere alphabetization): 'Again, you seem very committed to not actually discussing things... strange'; 'because i run out of patience with your behavior'; 'bizarre to me'; 'create nothing but misery for everyone involved'; 'Do you see that?'; 'don't get yourself all worked up'; 'don't torment editors who are following those policies'; 'filled with mountains of bullshit'; 'I have neither time nor desire to pander to your ego here'; 'If you want to learn, ask, don't argue - ask and listen'; 'It is as foolish as'; 'just a big waste of time (except perhaps for satisfying your ego)'; 'makes you look less than credible'; 'Maybe this is some kind of sport for you'; 'not a happy sign to me of things to come should you choose to continue working on WP'; 'profoundly un-Wikipedian behavior'; 'Running to no less than two drama boards'; 'slow down and breathe'; 'So blech'; 'that is a patience-trying request'; 'that it is your idea - a newbie's idea'; 'the issue is so trivial that it is not worth trying to take up the community's time with'; 'there is a strange inability to read going around'; 'umm'; 'you appear to misunderstand a fundamental aspect of the Misplaced Pages mission'; 'you are going to be miserable here'; 'You are not talking, you are arguing in a legalistic manner.'; 'you are not working toward the best interest of the encyclopedia'; 'you are showing that you understand none of this'; 'you can hear me, or not! your call, naturally. good luck! '; 'you consciously have taken a stance that you aware is outside the consensus'; 'You don't seem to be aware'; 'you have an ax to grind'; 'you need to be careful to aim that energy where it can be productive'; 'You should know by now'; 'you should know that you pick your battles; good judgement is essential'; 'Your intensity and urgency are making it difficult to have a rational conversation. Can you even see it? Where is that coming from?'

I would like to discuss with you here why you think that these comments of yours meet Misplaced Pages's Civility requirements. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)