Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jytdog (talk | contribs) at 00:39, 10 January 2013 (→Check 21 Act). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Jytdog, and welcome to 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)

Citation suggestion

Thanks for your contributions to growth hormone article! If you haven't seen this yet, please check out User:Diberri's Misplaced Pages template filling tool (instructions). Given a PubMed ID, one can quickly produce a full citation that can be copied and pasted into a Misplaced Pages article. This tool can save you a lot of work and ensure that the citations are displayed in a consistent manner. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Vitamin d

I did a revert of your recent edits, it seemed to be the best thing, the problem is that vitamin d actually isn't a vitamin(!) I would have done a partial revert but it was too complicated. Feel free to reapply your edits without this issue, sorry for any extra work.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 14:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure sounds reasonable. And have changed with slight modification / condensation of the text.Doc James(talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

thanks!Jytdog (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Those strange scripts where page numbers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Keep up the good work! Arcandam (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hey, I just made two little edits and I don't need to do anymore. Feel free to overwrite my changes, let me know when you're doing for a moment, and I'll go back in to make them. Steven Walling • talk 23:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Merging GMO#Regulation with GMO-Regulation

I knew that wuz an option, and I wuzn't willing to take it, because someone reverted my deletion. I also knew that deletion might've eaten some points about regulation, and considering that the material is inherently regional, I wuzn't exactly fascinated by the job. Thanks again. 142.59.53.48 (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog. A while ago I got interested in sorting out the GM articles, but found it a hard slog and moved onto other interests. I have only just returned (actually I am not really returning yet) and noticed the large amount of work you have done in this area. Have not had a detailed look into your edits, but most of what I saw looked like an improvement and mirrors many ideas I had. So just thought I would give a bit of encouragement and offer a draft I started writing on regulation before I got bored (see User:Aircorn/Sandbox). It focuses more on the laboratory regulations and you are welcome to use any information from it if you so wish. Keep up the good work. AIRcorn (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment

With regard to this (which isn't me) - IIRC it's bad form to refer to "this article" within the body of the article. (That actually includes statements like "see this article," but I think that's less of an issue.) Normally you would put it in italics at the top of the article, either manually or by using a template, e.g. {{for|genetically modified organisms|Genetically modified organism}}, and you get

If there's too much material, the other option is to make a template, e.g. Template:Evolutionary biology, which can then be placed on each one of the associated pages. I think that's what I would recommend. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup and the suggestion! I put a lot a work into deconvoluting topics covered in those articles so they are clean and organized... i know that paragraph is clumsy but i wanted readers to know what to expect and where to find what they were looking for. Very open to better ways of doing it, and i hope a "good form" way! I am too unsophisticated to manage a new template. There is one for genetic engineering http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Genetic_engineering but it dwells at the bottom of pages.. I don't know how to get it to the top where people see it..... thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The one that I linked goes at the top of the page. I'm not very good at wiki language either, but what I generally do is open up the edit screen and experiment with something that already exists, using the Preview function to confirm what I'm doing. I didn't know that there was already a template though, so I suppose it might get deleted as a duplication - I guess using notices in italics might be best after all. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

For example, I think something like this would work (no templates necessary). This article is about the history, methods, and applications of genetic engineering. Related articles cover genetically modified organisms, crops, food, regulation, and controversies. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This is sticking with you - you would really like to see this changed, I guess. I am OK with that suggestion... but part of the goal was also to guide readers what to expect in each. Would you be OK if it were a bit longer and had the explanatory material? If not, I am happy to compromise with what you suggest....Jytdog (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really, just noticed that you hadn't answered and trying to be helpful. :-) As above, I'm not really sure what the best option is, but I think someone will probably change it at some point. Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to try to head this off at the pass... I will follow your suggestion. Are the italics for me, or do you think it should be posted in italics? Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It's usually posted in italics. To continue with the previous example, the Evolution page has two lines of italics at the top. The Manual of Style guideline is at Misplaced Pages:Hatnote. But actually, reading over that guideline, it says that using the italicized notes to link to related articles is discouraged, so I'm not sure what to do. Perhaps you should ask for a second opinion. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the hatnote guideline. I agree, a note like this as a hatnote would definitely be out of bounds... I think I am just going to leave the paragraph. It is holding so far.. I've been watching page counts and plenty of people are reading and leaving it. And hopefully finding it useful, which is the point. By far the heaviest trafficked article is the GM food one. I expected more people to jump to controversies

Have to agree with Arc about those paragraphs. How about removing the paragraphs and replacing them with hatnotes using the {{about}} template. It would read something like this on the Genetically modified food page.

In my opinion those three pages are the only ones that really need this navigational aid. The regulation and controversy articles are really just WP:Content forks and should have their own heading in the other articles and be linked using a {{main}} template. The Genetic engineering article should really just be an overview article (see WP:Summary style). One way to think of it is to imagine what topic someone is looking for when they type something into the search bar. If it could be more than one article then a hatnote may be appropriate (i.e many people equate GMOs with GM food and GM crops is a suitably large subsection of food that it is reasonable to think someone might be looking for information on one of them when typing GMO). I made the {{Genetic engineering}} template a few years ago and could make a similar one that will be displayed at the top of articles if you want (it will look similar to {{Genetics2}} which is at the top of the Genetic engineering article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Aircorn! It is still not clear to me that hatnotes are appropriate but if you feel strongly about it, please give it a shot. The reason why I mentioned all five articles in that little paragraph is that content from all five was mooshed across them all. (Well originally there were 4 - I created the GM crops article.) I've been checking the page hit stats here http://stats.grok.se/ from time to time and the most trafficked articles are GMOs and GM food. I am surprised that more people are not going to the GM food controversies article. But before I put the paragraph in, I kept finding that editors wanted to insert text about the controversy everywhere, and I kept having to revert and point them to content that already existed in the Controversies article, or if it was new (rare) add that content there. Afterwards, not so much. So if you change this, I very much hope that you include the Controversies article in the hatnote, at least to point it out up front to editors who really want to see that this content is in Misplaced Pages. Finally, as currently configured, the GMO article and the genetic engineering article are very closely related. That's why I included it. But on average a bit over 2000 people look at the GM food everyday (spikes up to 4000 some days), and people are leaving the paragraph alone. Also the GM Crop article was just assessed by the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Genetics and the assessor didn't mess with it.. so those are arguments for leaving it as. But as I said, if you feel strongly about it, have at it. But please include the controversies article in it. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Not strongly, it is just something that I have never really come across here before. Doesn't mean other articles don't do it (shes a big place). Most articles I see seem to follow a hierarchical format. In an ideal situation genetic engineering would be the parent article (with Genetics the grandparent) and should contain sections on history, genetically modified organisms, methods, applications and regulation, objections etc with a main to longer more detailed articles. GMO should contain sections on history, crops, animals, food, methods, regulations, objections etc with mains to longer articles etc. It does get tricky with food and crops as there is a lot of overlap and not all food is crops or crops food. There is nothing wrong with adding information in more than one place if it is notable enough. That way readers should get an overview at most articles and be just a click away from the one with more detail. I am feeling a little inspired by you work so might jump back on the horse. AIRcorn (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful, it would be great to work with you! On what to cover in each article, hopefully you can see that I tried to create a rigorous structure where things are actually described (e.g. talk about agriculture in GM crops, talk about actual food in the food article, etc) in a focused way in various articles and sections, and used generic stubs on matter from other articles, taken from the ledes of those articles. This seems to be holding up pretty well as people read and editors pass through. But this is such an emotional issue for people and editors come by and want to drive the controversy into every section you can think of. But, it would be great to ride with you!Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Jytdog I think your reply to Wayne in the Talk section "Possible Problems" of the article 'Genetically modified food controversies' on 29th October is one of the best-written pieces I have seen on this subject. Absolutely excellent!! Please keep it up!SylviaStanley (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For catching that. I somehow confused them, probably because Chris Hansen made some statements on Myriad as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Source

The NYT article you added to Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories in this diff predates the replaced NYT editorial by almost two years and seems to be a lot less detailed. Do you oppose including the latter (in addition)?   — C M B J   13:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Messages

Also, let me know if you can gain access to Factiva.   — C M B J   13:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi Jytdog, I just wanted to say thanks for all your work on GMO articles recently - you're doing a good job! SmartSE (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

how to treat edits from students doing educational assignments

Hi Jytdog. I saw your comment on Pharaoh of the Wizards' talk page. That template means that the person who made that edit is working on that article as part of a class assignment (in the case Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, this class). So they are probably a new user, doing their best to improve the article but not necessarily experienced with the Misplaced Pages way of doing things. In terms of the actual edits, you don't need to treat them any differently than you would any other edits; if they don't improve the article or need to be modified, feel free to revert or aggressively modify. It's a good idea to point out your talk page on comments on the student's own talk page, though, as students often don't use their watchlists much. --Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

wisegeek as a reliable source

You asked about wisegeek as a reliable source.

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_95#Wisegeek_as_a_reliable_source
Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_37#Wisegeek
Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_87#Wisegeeks.com_and_Rust_Belt
Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_28#Wisegeek.com

my read is that it is generally considered very low quality/unreliable. What do you think? Before I deleted it I googled extensively and found nothing to back that up. Not even the website of the Sebewaing, Michigan chamber of commerce, which if it were true, one would think would say it. http://www.sebewaingchamber.com/ Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC) amended to say "low quality" whoops)Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I may have to agree with you now about wisegeek, but I still found a number of sources calling Sebewaing the "Sugar Beet Capital". Granted, these sources may have originally obtained their information from Misplaced Pages, so I'm not sure what to do.--Asher196 (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Monsanto and Wikileaks". Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Please don't get frustrated - this is how Misplaced Pages discussion usually works. You've been doing a lot of really important work, and I hope you carry on. Just remember to assume good faith, focus on content, and argue based on policy whenever possible. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just wanted to say that your additions to the Mayo v. Prometheus article are truly fantastic. Keep up the great work! Verkhovensky (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Solid

I just saw your work on canola oil. Nice, nuanced, ref-based edits. Excellent stuff, kudos. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 02:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Jatropha

Please comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Jatropha#Why_the_merge.3F --Pjacobi (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated

Hi,
I think that Arianmoshefi and ToreBKrudtaa are different people. You might have noticed a person's name all over the website which ToreBKrudtaa links to most frequently; Arianmoshefi did not link to that site at all. More generally, I think there are other differences in the content they added. bobrayner (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for improving the patent article! Edcolins (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Edcolins (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your help . . .

Just a note to acknowledge and appreciate your help with my students' projects. They are trying to make their learning matter beyond the classroom and supportive editors like you certainly promote the success of the WP Education projects. TomHaffie (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Seralini. Undue Weight.

Everything else in the "Health" section are positions by major organizations so to provide the position of just Seralini seems like undue weight. The statement itself may be true but there should be a better reliable source for it. BlackHades (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC) If you can find a better source please feel free to use it!Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Obstacles to Human Studies in GM food

The new section on obstacles to human testing that you added, I feel like instead of being in the Health lede, it should have its own section under Health. Perhaps titled "Human testing" or "Human testing obstacles" or something like that. What do you think? BlackHades (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! I half expected it to get deleted or shortened... it was something I had been wanting to do some research on and I did that.Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

trust of regulators re. gmo

For this conversation - The wikileaks cable shows the extreme political clout of the GMO movement. This link: http://www.biointegrity.org/list.html Shows regulatory problems.Pottinger's cats (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

On the organic food page, you state: " in past few months I have worked a lot on the genetically engineered crops/food/controversy/regulatory pages, as well as Monsanto's -- mostly getting rid of a lot of negative BS that anti-GMO forces had piled in, and trying to add high quality, well sourced information - keeping whatever of the original negative content I could find reliable sources for. The work has led me here. I have no bias one way or the other in all this except to include content that is scientifically well grounded and is stated in a NPOV way as per the 5 pillars. Some folks may consider the following a bias: I trust regulators and I don't accept (what i consider to be) conspiracy theories about dramatic regulatory capture of food regulatory agencies."

I wish that regulators really were independent, but there is demonstrable corporate control of policy in this realm. The following UK Guardian article shows the extent of this, that a US embassy cable recommended drawing up list of countries for 'retaliation' over opposition to genetic modification: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops

If you want a challenge to your views on this, see the following, particularly chapter 2, regarding the case of Putzai: http://www.scribd.com/doc/64711742/Seeds-of-Destruction

You may finds a lot of interesting documentation to extract to further improve wikipedia's articles on this, which is your project.Pottinger's cats (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

An ambassador isn't a regulator, far from it. An ambassador who doesn't like it that France has tried to ban GM products does not imply that he has been paid to do it or it's part of any nefarious plot (it's a US product the French where trying to ban, it's not that surprising that the ambassador didn't like it). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

:) Agreed that diplomats and politicians are not regulators - that is what i wrote on cat's talk page, where i replied to him/her.Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The items I cited at the bottom of the page, these two - 1) http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/60-why-genetically-engineered-food-is-dangerous-new-report-by-genetic-engineers 2) http://www.biointegrity.org/list.html

deal with the arguments you have raised in general, and not with the book under examination. I responded to your most recent points re. the NY Times article.Pottinger's cats (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The second link is a clear case of problems with regulators.Pottinger's cats (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Tags, edit summary, etc.

Yeah, thanks for your edit summary "edited text to respond to tags. deleted tags. i wish people would fix things instead of just sticking tags on." You are completely right. I don't like tags either. Sometimes, they might be useful however, especially when the contributor who added the tags did not really know how to fix the problems. Please assume good faith. Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Check 21 Act

Hey I just got done reformatting that article Check 21 Act. I saw ur edits co-ocurring. Can u go back and make sure I didn't wipe any of your edits? Any help appreciated. Am working on other related articles too. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)