Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:33, 13 October 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

Thank you for being one of Misplaced Pages's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

	The Cure Award
	In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Misplaced Pages. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Request Feedback on Fluoride Controversy

Could you please take a few minutes to consider the following?

My intention is to have a fair and accurate representation of the fluoridation controversy. To that end, I have read publications from the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60, and 70s as well as more current material. I’ve read over a thousand pages. It is hard to pull a few pages out of context, but I identified a few pages in 3 of those resources for which I’d appreciate your feedback.

Item 1 This entire excerpt is wonderful, but back up to Chapter 1 in this 2010 book to look at Tables 1, 2 and 3. Also read the section “WHO says so” which focuses on studies from all decades.
http://books.google.com/books?id=KPn4AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT153&lpg=PT153&dq=books+by+philip+sutton+fluoride&source=bl&ots=lhg0T_8ZrG&sig=RMdFFYKnJgIVimwtfrf49fbtw9U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=P-gcVNjZD9edygTl2YDYDQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=books%20by%20philip%20sutton%20fluoride&f=false

Item 2 The 1960 book by Philip R.N. Sutton is entirely based on the analysis of the initial studies. He was a statistician and didn't have a POV regarding fluoridation, just the way the trials were conducted. I don't know whether you'd want to read the entire book, but it at least proves that there were objections based on something other than "communists" in the 1950s. I've included a couple of shorter options, below. He was cited in the 2010 book above.

• Fluoridation: Errors & Omissions (1960): http://www.scribd.com/doc/212649060/Fluoridation-Errors-and-Omissions-in-Experimental-Trials-2-Ed-Phillip-Sutton-1960
• Chapter 10: http://www.fluoridation.com/sutton.htm
• Author Obit: http://www.fluorideresearch.org/283/files/FJ1995_v28_n3_p123-124.pdf

Item 3"' The first 250 pages in The Great Dilemma (1978) are primarily science, and I found them fascinating. Sections, mostly clinical notes on patients, are reprinted from Waldbott’s 1965 book. George Waldbott was an internationally recognized allergist and research scientist who first identified penicillin allergies, human anaphylactic shock and the connection between what was then called idiopathic asthma and smoking.
You can find these references on www dot whale dot to /b/Waldbott_DILEMMA_ocr.pdf

Excerpt, p 380:

“For nearly a decade after 1931, the PHS sought to remove excessive fluoride from water supplies because of endemic mottled teeth. But after 1940, the balance began to tilt in the opposite direction - to augment water supplies with fluoride. On the basis of studies on a very small number of healthy young men, plus limited surveys of health effect in natural fluoride areas, PHS scientists concluded that fluoride had no significant adverse effect on health, except for occasional mild mottling….. “

• pp 304-305 In 1939, the level was 0.1, then they raised it to 1.0 to 1.5 in 1946 based on based on research of five young healthy men.
• pp 260- (the initial scientific debate of the 40s into the 50s.)
• pp 285 - 289 WHO vote and American Academy of Allergy statement
• pp. 301…. 1938 Mellon, Kettering, Cox & ADA
• p 344 succinct experiment re periodontal disease, missing teeth with age and kidney disease in lab experiment. Books includes other references to gum diseases and missing teeth in locales with high natural fluoride on 4 continents, including in USA.... but this conversation is primarily about the controversy.

Item 4 A short 2005 article from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons re science & controversy: http://www.jpands.org/vol10no2/kauffman.pdf

Again, my purpose is to have a fair and unbiased Misplaced Pages representation of the fluoridation controversy. As it stands, it is incomplete and inaccurate. I thought perhaps bringing it to your talk page would be more appropriate. Thank you.

Seabreezes1 (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks for asking my opinion! not sure why you are not posting this on the relevant flouride page where everybody who is interested can give you feedback...ii suggest you do that, and i will respond there. Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

AfD discussion on beta-casein-related article

You may be interested in this candidate for deletion. My listing it for deletion today prompted an editor to double its size from 13 words to 26; you may some views on its merits or possibilities. It seems to me you have the notable aspect of the subject covered in the casein article. BlackCab (TALK) 13:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa

Hi there, would you be interested in taking a look at the article? The article has been a tremendous challenge due to its speedy increase in severity, requiring constant watching (going over all additions of unknown editors) and updates. While we have an extremely good working relationship as a group, there are very few editors that watch over the upkeep of the article. The article is now well beyond the WP suggested length and a split is being discussed. I know from past work with you that you have a good eye for assessing an article's improvement needs and it would be good to have fresh eyes take a look at it and offer suggestions. If interested, see the last few sections of the talk page. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

i would be happy to. thanks for your kind words! Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You said on Brian's talk page:

right so "paid member of pubmed" is nonsense. that is what i thought. writing nonsense is not helpful to anybody especially when you do it in the course of trying to buttress your credibility as you did in the dif i provided above. I am going to read what you write on Talk and add to the article with greater scrutiny going forward and i suggest you avoid this sort of thing going forward. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't possibly imagine what you were thinking to treat an editor like this. It is totally unacceptable. We have all had an excellent working relationship at the article and this sort of behavior pretty much will put an end to that. You're going to more closely scrutinize his edits, indeed. May as well say he's a liar so you'll need to watch him. I'm embarrassed that I was the one that asked for your help at the article. Gandydancer (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

yep - i do have little tolerance for editors puffing themselves up personally in disputes like he did in the dif I pointed out to him, and when they do it with pure bullshit that is even worse. I was hoping when I made my initial inquiry that he would say something very sensible like "oh, i meant elsevier not pubmed" which would have put an end to it. he didn't. so i pushed. getting something that basic that wrong is indeed worrisome. i am of course sorry he folded up his tent and ran away but that was his decision and it was surprising. it wasn't my intention. and i am sorry to disappont you. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog i notice this today your response to gandy...You never bothered to mention to Gandy that i have explained it all on my talk page nor did you notice that i put this on the main ebola page as well In my haste to respond i made a slight error this should have read "i am a paid member of pubmed subsidiaries" and not "i am a paid member of pubmed". and then you come forward with a fake apology. I have added nearly 50% of the info to Ebola page and never asserted ownership. I timelessly updated all the info as it came along taking into consideration the other editors. . Gandy ask you for help and the first thing you do is attack the one of the main editors. I thank my lucky stars that i decide to leave wiki. Every discussion that started problems i handled with civility, but you approach it different. I tend to agree with SW5 dl3. You have a strange way of dealing with other editors. I could further respond by sending you my credit statements where all my deduction goes of to Elsie, Science.org etc , but quit frankly it's not worth it. 41.13.100.66 (talk) 09:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Forot to put my name here Brian

If you really feel feel that your apology is sincere then add it to the Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa page - Greetings BrianBrianGroen (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

hi brian. gandy copied that text above from your talk page - she read everything that was there. interactions with other editors on wikipedia can indeed be frustrating and sometimes hurtful ( it has been both for me as well at times) and editors do get upset and leave, and then decide to come back. as i wrote to you, gandy especially has valued your contributions and I do hope you decide to come back. i took up the conversation with you about "paid member of pubmed" off the article Talk page because it had nothing to do with the article's content (see the talk page guidelines. i also apologized to you off the article's talk page because that has nothing to do with the article's content. my apology was and remains authentic. i am sorry. best regards. Jytdog (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog apology accepted and trust me all my input is credible. And trust I will never put in something that is not in a source and verified. BrianGroen (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

thank you very much! it will be great to have you back!! Jytdog (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies from my side too. My behavior was also not acceptable... BrianGroen (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

yes i am glad brian is back. i understand your frustrations with the other editor but please don't write negative things about other editors on my talk page (this sort of thing has upset me before, when you have done it about me...) but feel free to email me if you want to blow off steam. i stepped back from the article so as to be very sure not to upset brian again and let him get his feet down again, compounded by being crazy busy at work. i will come back soon! Jytdog (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

you are free to do as you like! you didn't know i would object when you wrote it. i will try to get to that split soon - but if somebody beats me to it that is OK by me. Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

The two of you need to stop edit warring. You do not own this article. The edit I made is better sourced and updated. It makes more sense and makes things very clear to the reader. This isn't about you and Gandydancer. Stop! Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2014 (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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI, about the other editor, I saw you describe her at one point as being new here. In fact, not, see: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive154#SW3 5DL. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Valsartan/sacubitril

Jytdog, what medical journals do you read regularly? If any? --Nbauman (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

i am in and out of medical journals every day. there is no journal i read regularly, i don't have time. Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you don't have time to read even one medical journal regularly, how do you know that my characterization of medical journals is a fringe POV, rather than a mainstream opinion of the editors of those same journals, published in those same journals? --Nbauman (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

i just told you - i am in and out of journal articles all day - i use the literature all the time as part of my work - i just don't read any single journal regularly - would love to have that leisure. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You accused me of having a fringe POV, because I said that some medical journal articles are marketing or advertising. All of the major medical journals have made that point. If you had read any of those journals regularly, you'd know that. How can you tell that my view is a fringe POV, if you haven't read the medical journals that have published all the articles that hold the same view? --Nbauman (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

is there some reason we are having this discussion in 2 places? What you actually wrote, was "It's a pre-approval advertisement for the drug..... Publishing a randomized controlled trial, where the drug company has control over the design and publication of the trial, gives just one side. They're written under the direction of the marketing department. Drug salesmen distribute them to doctors. Even the drug companies refer to them as marketing. Some doctors refer to them as advertising." This is a ridiculous oversimplification and generalization, to the point of being FRINGE. Yes indeed. And as I wrote on your Talk page and elsewhere, giving boatloads of WP:WEIGHT to a clinical trial result and discussion of it, is not what we do here. If what you want to do, is grind your axe about publication of clinical trial results, WP is not the place to do it. And article talk pages are not a forum for your views on the scientific publication enterprise either. But let me acknowledge that I believe you are well intentioned. You just expressed a very strong, and in my view FRINGE, POV on that. You see the world through your lens. I wish you hadn't done it. I should just have ignored it, since it was off-topic. I regret that I didn't - my bad for taking the bait, as I said on the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You accuse me of having a fringe view and POV pushing, which I think is an insult that impugns my credibility and professionalism. I'm trying to figure out what evidence you think you have for that accusation. And if you have no evidence, I want you to retract it.

By definition, WP:FRINGE is "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field".

I've given you examples of major authorities who have published articles in major peer-reviewed journals which repeatedly say that studies sponsored by drug companies and published in their journals are "marketing". Even the drug companies agree that they are marketing. Some authors use stronger language. This is scholarship in the field that broadly supports the idea that company-sponsored publications are "marketing." An idea that's broadly supported doesn't meet the definition of WP:FRINGE.

You are falsely accusing me of promoting a fringe idea. How can it be a fringe idea if it's broadly supported by scholarship in the field, and therefore doesn't meet the definition of WP:FRINGE? --Nbauman (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

you are like a pitbull! i'll repeat - the statement I quote above is an absurd oversimplification and generalization. the same kind of overbroad black and white rhetorical statements that Angell has reduced herself to making. it is a sad thing. if you want to back off that statement and make it more grey so it reflects the real world, my reaction that it is FRINGE will likely go away. i understand activism and the desire (and point) of making strong statements to get people's attention. that is one thing. describing the real world is another. Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not an oversimplification. I'm quoting directly from articles written by editors of major peer-reviewed journals, and published in those same journals. They repeatedly describe RCTs published in their journals as "marketing" for the drug companies. That's a mainstream, consensus view.

Angell is a medical doctor, she was the editor of the most-respected medical journal in the world, and she is now a professor at Harvard. I doubt that your credentials in and understanding of medical publishing are anywhere near hers. For WP purposes, she is a WP:RS and you are not. The same is true of Richard Horton, Richard Smith (editor), Richard Lehman, John Ingelfinger, Jerome Kassirer, and more, all of whom refer to journal articles as "marketing". It's preposterous for you to describe their criticism of the pharmaceutical industry as a "fringe view." It's disruptive editing for you to delete all their criticism based on your personal, non-expert opinion. On WP, one person can destroy a good article.

And as I said on Talk:Valsartan/sacubitril, I had decided to give up trying to argue with you. The only reason I continued was that you came to my talk page and posted the false, insulting false charge that I am pushing a NPOV, fringe idea, and you distorted my words (and the words of mainstream medical journal editors) beyond recognition. I can't leave that on the record unanswered. And I'm not going to stoop to your level of personal insults. --Nbauman (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

first, removing sources that fail MEDRS and content based on them from a health-related article is not disruptive. we have to do that all the time, when editors get overenthusiastic digging into primary sources. Second... i do acknowledge that there are a lot of people who feel that the pharma/biotech industries are corrupt and corrupting and yes one can read endless books and articles about that. I have acknowledged that all along, i believe. And I have said, several times, that all these editors are still in the business of medical publishing, and these articles continue to be published, and they continue to serve their purpose. The real world is what I am holding up against you, to say that the broad brush strokes you have painted with, just do not correspond to what the mainstream is actually doing every day. Going through Horton's 10 points:

1. Manipulation: yep this happens sometimes. fraud is rare.
2. sponsorship bias: yep this is a problem. (this is also a problem with academic publishing, but relates more to getting one's next grant by showing that the hypothesis in the grant was Important and True)
3. undisclosed adverse events: happens but this is just stupid and my bet is that it is rare. would be interested to see data on this.
4. not publishing negative data. this is a problem across the board. positive results publication bias is everywhere. interesting that he notes Paxil here. the SSRI blowout was more politics driven than data driven, and suicide rates among adolescents has gone up since the black box label went on SSRIs.
5. undisclosed COI - this is pretty well managed these days. this was definitely 9 years ago,
6. editorial kickbacks. this appears to be mostly name-calling. companies do have to buy reprints if they want to give the papers to doctors, payors, and other stakeholders.
7. ghost writing - yep it happens
8. CME - this one is completely bizarre to me. if countries and medical societies don't want to take money from pharma, they shouldn't take it.
9. This is the most bizarre one of all. What is the actual complaint against pharma/biotech there? I can't see one.

All that adds up to "yep there are some problems". Not the broad brush strokes you painted. And as I have said several times, it is the broad brush that makes it FRINGE in my eyes; it just a matter of lack of moderation, of too much black and white. Jytdog (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Enthusiastic about the truth!

Dear Jytdog, Would you let me talk to you for a moment. When a great scientist is working on a difficult problem, does he just know the answer. Does he take a stance and guard it or does he refuse to take a permanent stance and flow with the tide of the latest research. Which strategies do great reasoners with great courage use to stand up for what is right and thereby gain the respect of their peers for generations?

I think it is easiest to define a good scientist by objectively measurable qualities and leave the subjective stuff to the arts & individual spirituality. Modern science has produced Multiple Intelligence Theory as an objective way of defining the ways people can be intelligent in different areas. Sometimes scientists are very highly developed in many lines but have difficulty noticing their blind spots because they haven't had a friend introduce them to Multiple Intelligences Theory, and many people are uncomfortable adopting continues on with medieval stereotypes about biomedical subjects.

In the very near future, a good way for us to assess our scientists' balance of these different intelligences would be for them to, simply, take a multiple intelligences test online. Won't it be amazing when scientists everywhere realize that the tools to hone their own minds and their own self-awareness exist only seconds away? Even more incredible is how widespread understanding of the scientific method is. Truly science is making great progress in understanding nature right now. It's even bizarre because so often we learn something a year ago or ten years ago and that idea has already been made obsolete.

I just want to THANK YOU for your efforts in maintaining scientific rigor and being a truly amazing, humble contributor who's always willing to question archaic ideas. Thanks Jytdog, Boleroinferno (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your kind words. not sure if you are looking for my thoughts in the first paragraph, or just teeing up your idea in the second. I will just respond to that. i doubt that any kind of online IQ test will be able to predict scientific success. In my experience it is a mixture of a lot of things. It doesn't even take brilliance, as much as it takes asking the right question at the right time, and actually looking at what is in front of you. lots of human skills are required too (if nobody gives you money you cannot get anything done, no matter how great your ideas are; you have to be able to get funding). and a LOT of hard work and persistence. Good luck here, in any case. Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for Intervention

User:Jytdog, Hi. There is a question about what is considered worthy or not worthy of publishing on a WP article page in terms of photos because of what may or may not be perceived by others as distasteful (bad taste). The editor, User "PacificWarrior101," who has lately been joined by User "Amire80," have posted a Commons photograph of Israeli singer and transgender, Dana International, a photograph which I personally feel shows bad taste and tends to "flout" the dignity and self-respect of the Yemenite Jewish people. I voiced my concerns to the editor about my feelings of repugnancy evoked by the picture on a main article page, Yemenite Jews, that treats on ethnicity and, to a large extent, the history of Yemenite Jews. Most Yemenite Jews will feel a sense of shame by seeing this photo of "Dana International" on the page that speaks specifically about them as a people - and who, by the way, are mostly conservative to religious. While I have no personal problems about discussing issues of transgender, here the matter is different. Dana International's photograph on the main page of an article which treats on ethnicity is tantamount to putting up an image of the serial killer "Son of Sam" (David Berkowitz) on the ethnicity page, Jews. Or, let's say, a photo of Israeli troops shooting at an Arab child, on a page which speaks on Israeli ethnicity. There should be a place for common considerations as for what is tactful and what is not, particularly when the photo is controversial and evokes shame. See the Talk page on Yemenite Jews, and the sub-section: "Flouting an Ethnic Group." Any advice by you will be much appreciated.Davidbena (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

i am very sorry but wikipedia is not censored. That is wikipedia policy. So an argument that an image might offend some people will go nowhere - that argument violates policy. Like it or not, Dana International is of Yemenite Jewish stock, and is a world-famous person. (you cannot argue that is she not WP:NOTABLE) I see no good argument you can make within Misplaced Pages to exclude her image from that article. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

In your opinion, can I use the following argument? According to WP:Image use policy, "images are included in articles to increase the reader's understanding of the subject." With this view in mind, if a collage is meant to be a representation of the whole, then the picture of Yeron Cohen (alias "Dana International") is out of place. The insertion of that one photo does not aid in helping the reader's understanding of the subject, especially in light of the fact that it is controversial and arouses certain associations, and tends more to "discredit" an ethnic group.Davidbena (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

i do not think that will fly. if the goal is to represent the whole, dana international is definitely part of the whole. "discredit" is a value judgement that will carry no weight and will communicate to other editors that your goal is indeed to censor the article.Jytdog (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

i had no idea you were actually trying to do this, until today. ugh. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Leptospermone Antibacterial?

In vitro activity against bacteria does not make the citation medical in nature, so far it is more biological. So at that stage where medical application / activity is not yet concerned, I believe a primary source may be feasible wrt. MEDRS. Think of action as a food preservative etc. The src was from a food science article. 70.137.135.214 (talk) 09:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Also think of an unwanted action, maybe shared with synthetic derivatives, as a biocide, acting on beneficial or symbiotic bacteria. Would still not be medical in nature. 70.137.135.214 (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

i'd be happy to discuss on the article Talk page, if you want to open a discussion there. you can just copy this there, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating essays

Fascinating essays on your userpage!

Have you ever watched the show Penn & Teller: Bullshit! ?

— Cirt (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

:) i have not had the pleasure! Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I took the page List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit! to Featured List quality. If you have a chance, catch an episode sometime and let me know what you think of the show? — Cirt (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

i watched a few episodes on youtube last night. great great stuff! thank you! Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You're most welcome! Did you catch their bit about Dihydrogen Monoxide ? — Cirt (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

oh my i just watched a clip! brilliant! "it's everywhere, in our lakes and reservoirs. in our baby food, everywhere." Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Davidbena

What's your next step? Waiting if the editor got the message, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, or something else? --NeilN 23:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

since an admin has been summoned, I will wait for him or her. I will also keep my word, of my last warning. I was not aware of the arbcom notice when i wrote that; if i had been aware i would have gone directly to AE instead of issuing the last warning. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola article

Please remove the mention of an email from SW3's talk page since as you know I did not send any emails to you (or anyone else, as far as that goes). Perhaps it does not bother you to see it used to add to his poor characterization of me, but it does matter to me. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, please don't come back to my talk page. Unfortunately, neither of you have made constructive comments there and as I said on my last post, that conversation has ended. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, that was interesting. Actually I had no intention of calling SW3 5DdL a "mother fucker". I had something different in mind which was a play on words, but our conversation was cut short when you (correctly) reminded me that it was not acceptable to discuss him/her on your talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please do not

accuse people of adding material that they did not add, such as "Your content, " Still other publications appear as advertising disguised as science." is reverted because it violates the policy," at Talk:Sugar_beet. If you stopped to think a little more it might seep through to you that the reason these pages get so much controversy is because you are inhibiting discussion of points that people don't understand. But I've had enough of your don't-dare-to-discuss-these-matters-because-I-own-the-pages attitude and will not discuss this further. Good bye. Please do not edit my talk page, and I won't edit yours again. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

you are welcome to come here as much as you like. i will honor your request to not come to your Talk page further. I would be happy to continue the discussion at Sugar Beet if you care to respond there. best regards Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

btw, I see the mistake I made that you referred to. you were defending a third party's edit. i missed that. i will correct over on the talk page. thanks for pointing that out - my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		for diffusive and even-handed input in editor disputes DocumentError (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

not sure what this is for but thank you! Jytdog (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just look at your edit history dude. :-) Well-deserved. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 10:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

that's very kind but i can be too harsh sometimes too and cause problems. but thanks! Jytdog (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your patient work at Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing, defending use of secondary and WP:MEDRS. A well-deserved barnstar! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

thank you. i need to patienter. Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It is just that I don't agree with you

Nothing personal, and if I believed it to be racist, I would be the first to expunge it. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

i am digging your respectful disagreement! thank you. i realize that was a loaded thing and actually just struck it as i cannot find good-enough sources. there is lots and lots of sociological writing on colonialist/orientalist use of "guru" and other hijackings from eastern religions and heck some people even accuse chopra of orientalism. but it is too complex an argument and doesn't read smackdab on this enough to work in the hothouse environment of the chopra article. so withdrawn. high level thing I am after is that calling him a "guru" is just ...tabloid-y. Not encyclopedic. to me, icky. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of RFC in violation of WP:TALK

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Synthetic life

Mayday. I almost had convulsions when I read "3D printers to create synthetic life" in Craig Venter. I want to hit delete so badly I but want you to be my wing-man and keep me cool. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Biomedical Engineering wiki page

Thanks for reverting all my changes, and bringing the wiki page for 'Biomedical Engineering' back to the condition that it was in. The talk page clearly said: "If you can improve it, please do." linking to the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Be_bold And that is what I did.

I did not contribute based on "original research" or "non-verified" work (the reasons that you have cited while reverting the edits). All the information was from IEEE EMBS page, which was referenced right at the beginning of the section of Subdisciplines. This page needed huge improvements, and I spent huge amount of my time trying to do that. And I had clearly mentioned in comments that this still needs more work. It was in no way complete; it still needed references, more information under each subdiscipline, etc. What I had done was created a starting template (what you called an essay) for more people to come and contribute, because clearly there were lot such offers in Talk page before, but either disinterest or politics did not let those efforts materialize.

I can guarantee you that the edits reflected the wide field of BME much more than what it is right now. I had not deleted anything significant from what was already there. If you really think you are the guardian of this page, I highly suggest that you improve it. Thanks! A Proud Biomedical Engineer - Craziwiki (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

you are new here. writing sarcastic notes is not a great way to start. and i am sorry but your personal "guarantees" don't have any meaning within WP. It is great that you want to improve wikipedia, but if you want your edits to "stick" you have to follow wikiepedia's policies and guidelines. if you have any questions about how wikipedia works i would be happy to help you, but you should start by reading the links to the policies and guidelines that i left on your talk page, and put in my edit note. good luck! Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

i don't think i disregarded any wiki policies and guidelines (as i told you my edits did not violate WP:OR and WP:VERIFY, they were all sourced from IEEE EMBS page, a highly regarded society).. good luck with wiki editing in that case.. the page is all yours Craziwiki (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

the page is neither yours nor mine. you are brand new here - you don't understand how wikipedia works - and you are fighting with me instead of figuring out your context. not how a good engineer operates in any system. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The Federalist (website)

I wanted to talk about your recent deletion at The Federalist (website). I don't understand how this is a WP:BLP issue? Yes RfC on the entry into Neil deGrasse Tyson's bio page has not been decided yet. But it isn't for reasons of verifiability. Neil deGrasse Tyson himself explicitly said: "But I was wrong about when he said it. It appears in his speech after the Columbia Shuttle disaster, eighteen months after September 11th 2001. My bad. And I here publicly apologize to the President for casting his quote in the context of contrasting religions rather than as a poetic reference to the lost souls of Columbia. I have no excuse for this, other than both events-- so close to one another -- upset me greatly." As such this WP:BLPSELFPUB verifies the fact that it occurred, and eliminates any WP:BLP concerns. The reason that it wasn't immediately entered into Neil deGrasse Tyson's bio page is that there are still concerns about WP:WEIGHT. It is entirely possible that there is not enough WP:WEIGHT to include it in Neil deGrasse Tyson's bio page at all, and yet it still be relevant to the The Federalist (website) satisfying the WP:WEIGHT requirements for that page. Do you disagree, and if so why?--Obsidi (talk ) 03:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't know the details of this case, but logic surely dictates that if something's not weighty enough to be mentioned in somebody's bio, then it certainly isn't going to be weighty enough to be mentioned in an article about a web site (or in any less-specific article). Alexbrn 03:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the website that originally accused him of misquoting president Bush, before he acknowledged that it occurred. Why couldn't it be weighty enough (compared to the overall story of the website that did the accusation), even if it isn't important enough to the overall story of the subject? This isn't just some random website that happened to talk about the story. --Obsidi (talk )03:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

let the conversation at the bio page finish. there is WP:NODEADLINE. if you cannot see that the whole "affair" is problematic with respect to WP:BLP I don't know what to say to you. But i would not mess around with arbcom discretionary sanctions if i were you. just be patient. WP is not the blogosphere. Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I never said it was the blogosphere, and I had half a mind to just revert the change. arbcom discretionary sanctions don't apply if there is no WP:BLP issue. I posted here for you to get a chance to explain the WP:BLP issue (as I take real WP:BLP issues very seriously). So far I have not heard a WP:BLP related objection. --Obsidi (talk ) 03:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a serious debate over including this matter on the Tyson page. Right? You may be on one side or the other of it, but you cannot deny that there is no consensus to include this matter in Misplaced Pages. Lacking that consensus, it doesn't come in yet, per WP:BLP, and you should not WP:COATRACK it in, in the federalist article. That is straight BLP policy. Again, there is no deadline here, as rabid as the blogosphere might be. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There is still a question of WP:WEIGHT about the entry into that article. But that is not a WP:BLP concern for entry into this article.--Obsidi (talk ) 03:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

if you check the RfC - which has not been closed yet - there are very clearly articulated issues under BLP. Just wait until the RfC closes, at least. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)