Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jytdog

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jytdog (talk | contribs) at 20:50, 22 April 2014 (→Question about Wiki). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:50, 22 April 2014 by Jytdog (talk | contribs) (→Question about Wiki)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archiving icon
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:

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

See...

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

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

MEDRS suggestions.

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

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

Thanks for talking, Khimaris. I appreciate your questing spirit, but Misplaced Pages, as it has been constructed, is not a site that will change the world; Misplaced Pages reflects the world. If you want to change Misplaced Pages so that Misplaced Pages will work to change the world, you need to start far deeper than MEDRS - you need to start with the very pillars of Misplaced Pages and work up from there. There are lots of other sites where you don't have to fight such a deep and protracted battle to write the kinds of things you want to write, right away. To answer your questions:
  1. This I answer with a question. Would you please explain how extensively qualifying primary sources is not WP:OR?
  2. Wikpedia is meant for the masses, for your average joe. Please see WP:TECHNICAL as well as sections 7 & 8 of this part of the 1st pillar. We therefore don't present mounds of data; we say things in plain English.
  3. Yep. There is a social construct and Misplaced Pages is very, very solidly enmeshed in it. We describe what is as best we can, using the best sources we can find - sources produced by the best institutions that society has built to carry out the scientific method and the historical method (our best tools for grasping reality as objectively as humans can); we do not right great wrongs and we have no crystal ball.
There you go... Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It isn't original research to explicitly state the limitations of a paper that it openly states. When was the last time you read a peer reviewed article that didn't state it's own limitations?
It isn't overly technical to state something like 60% of people typically respond to a particular treatment. I can't imagine a literate person not understanding this.
Per WP:RGW I'm not engaging in activism for any particular issue. And per crystal ball I'm not engaging in unverifiable speculation. Every addition that I have made thus far has followed the stated and explicate content policies of Misplaced Pages. Nevertheless, I refuse to be beholden to the arbitrary foolishness of people saying, "My source is better" or "It was better before" whenever a conflict arises. I think you're learned enough to realize the extensive limitations and inherent biases of the currently existing academic hierarchy.
I think you are all misunderstanding where I'm coming from. So I'll state my biases. I'm an egalitarian transhumanist health nut and nerd who gets his flu shots every year and supports the use and deregulation of GMFs as a harm reduction strategy. I'm not afraid of science or the scientific method. I simply find the way information is being disseminated to be deeply troubling for the previously stated reasons.Khimaris (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Some of what you write is reasonable, and to be frank, some is over the top. Your intensity and urgency are making it difficult to have a rational conversation. Can you even see it? Where is that coming from? (those are both real questions about you (not about others); they are not rhetorical questions) Jytdog (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I really want to emphasize this to you, Khimaris - both the spirit and the letter of the policy, WP:RS and the guideline WP:MEDRS call us to reach first for secondary sources, read them carefully, and base content on them. You need a really good reason to work against that and rely on primary sources instead. This is a fundamental Misplaced Pages thing, and it does you no good, and makes you look less than credible, to blow past that, as you have been doing. When you are asked why you are going against Misplaced Pages's reliance on secondary sources, if you want to have a rational conversation, you need to answer positively; "why not" is a bad answer - an irrational answer - and is a sign that you have an ax to grind and are not working toward the best interest of the encyclopedia. I am not saying that you do have an ax to grind; I am describing how you are coming across. I wish you would calm down, and respond carefully and clearly as to why primary sources are justified where you want to use them. I understand that you have an issue with the spirit and letter of Misplaced Pages's policy on this matter, but fighting against policy when working on specific content is going to create nothing but misery for everyone involved. Nobody wants that. Jytdog (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Part of it is pride and part of it is a general disgust for the arbitrary nature of the wiki-hierarchy. I could spend a good three hours of my day happily reading pubmed, both primary and secondary sources, about some particular condition or treatment. I then make a small addition or rewording to the wikipedia article in question, that is fully inline with the various rules and regulations. In some cases the edit is reverted and I am condescended to and told to follow some rule the author pulled out of their ass. I've looked at the edit logs of these articles. It's typically the editor with the most extensive additions. They "own" the article. And they don't want their hard work that's earned them so many internet points to be changed. It's disgusting and childish.
It's hard to take consensus building seriously when the consensus is usually "Don't make significant changes my pet project". So this makes me "intense" and I "urgently" want this behavior to stop.
On the subject of primary sources: I prefer the addition of new qualified information. (Qualifying isn't original research by the way)Someone mentioned the idea of not adding primary sources at all because they are sometimes non-reproduceable. To this I say so what? The current practice of science will eventually find the right conclusion. There are enough PHDs and grad students fighting over funding to ensure this. Are you really saying that the Eventualist and Inclusionist editing tendencies are invalid and that people, like me, who subscribe to them have no place here? Khimaris (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for talking. You are clearly a smart person and you are lucky with that. And I understand your frustration with other editors - hell is other people, as they say. That of course includes me and you. From what I can gather, you appear to misunderstand a fundamental aspect of the Misplaced Pages mission, or perhaps, you consciously have taken a stance that you aware is outside the consensus. You don't seem to be aware that it is outside the consensus, so I am guessing it is a misunderstanding. Here it is - Misplaced Pages is not written for smart people with lots of time, and Misplaced Pages has nothing to do with "the free flow of information"; instead, this is an encyclopedia intended to present reliable information to the public (average people, who are busy), and it is written by editors who are bound by policies and guidelines. Being an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", it absolutely needs these policies and guidelines or it would be filled with mountains of bullshit and talk pages would be an ugly wasteland of irrational bickering. Under the given policies and guidelines, we work hard to curate reliable information; to present the consensus of the experts in the field on any given topic, and we try to reach consensus about content disputes by talking through things within the framework of the policies and guidelines. Rejecting the policies and guidelines is rejecting the very basis upon which we can actually be egalitarian and can cooperate rationally - they form our world. When you say "so what" to including information from primary studies - which have a high likelihood of being false and when you ignore the imperative to reach for secondary sources, you are showing that you understand none of this. Do you see that? Until you really get all that, you are going to be miserable here and continue causing friction that is really avoidable. Really. If you want to change Misplaced Pages, please direct your energy to changing the policies, and don't torment editors who are following those policies - in spirit and letter - in given articles, and don't get yourself all worked up over specific content where those policies and guidelines are being played out. It is as foolish as yelling at a cop who is giving you a speeding ticket, arguing that speed limits are stupid. It isn't fair to anyone, including yourself, it just makes everybody have a shitty day, and it is just a big waste of time (except perhaps for satisfying your ego). Like I said you have a questing spirit - you need to be careful to aim that energy where it can be productive. Ten years ago when I first started working in a job I now totally love, I was arguing with my wonderful boss about my perception (which I now recognize as stunningly arrogant and ignorant) of some concepts underlying what we were doing, and she said to me: "You told me you find this work interesting and want to learn how to do it. You want to play this game. So you have to learn the rules and play by them, especially when you are starting out. If you want to play some other game, go do that." Bam. Eyes opened. Changed my life. Anyway, you are free to ignore me, or to try to understand what I am telling you. But you have some fundamental misunderstandings about Misplaced Pages - about what we do here under current policies and guidelines. In any case, good luck to you! Jytdog (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
And when I say "work on changing policies", I mean work on changing this, which you can do by discussing it on that policy's Talk page. Not on the Talk pages of existing articles. Jytdog (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent Revert

Thanks for your kind sentiments that my attempted edit on the page Judaism was "interesting." (smile) As you may have noticed, I am relatively new here at WP, and I admit that there is still much for me to learn. In this particular case, however, there is a very fine and delicate line that must be drawn between what is defined as WP:OR, and what is merely an attempt to explain in layman's terms what has been stated explicitly in Primary Sources, but which cannot otherwise be understood without elaborating. I'm not so certain that, by expanding on a text's meaning, it falls under the category of WP:OR, as we all interject and explain in our own words the primary and secondary sources used in making articles. For example:

The Midrash Rabba (Numbers Rabba 19:3), a Primary Source, says explicitly: 

אמר רבי יוחנן בשם רשב"י: כתיב ולא תתחתן בם
למה? כי יסיר את בנך מאחרי

בנך הבא מישראלית קרוי בנך, ואין בנך הבא מן הכושית קרוי בנך, אלא בנה

(Translation: "Said Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, It is written: 'And do not consummate marriages with them' (Deut. 7:3). Why? 'For he will turn away your son from after me' (ibid.). Your son who comes from an Israelite woman is called 'your son,' but he that comes from the Negro woman is not called 'your son,' but rather her son.")

As you can see, the language used here is very terse and almost laconic. It seems, therefore, appropriate to explain its meaning to make it easier to understand. Perhaps with your advice we, together, can add a suitable footnote that explains its import. I have suggested the following:

The source from which the Sages of Israel learn that a child born from a Jewish mother is a Jew, although he might have a gentile father, is Deuteronomy 7:3. There is a prohibition against taking the Canaanites in marriage, viz., "You shall not consummate marriages with them, nor shall you give your daughter to his son or take his son for your daughter, since he will turn away your son from following me." By looking very closely and diacritically at the wording of the text, it says "...since he (the Canaanite father) will turn away your son (i.e. the child born to your Jewish daughter) from following me." Here, we see that G-d still reckons the child to be Jewish by calling him, your son - i.e., even though such unions were forbidden. G-d calls him your son, implying that he is still an Israelite because he was born from a Jewish mother. However, the opposite is not true. The Torah does not say, "...for she (the Canaanite mother) will turn away your son." In this case, the child would no longer be considered your son, but rather a gentile (cf. Yevamoth 17a; Numbers Rabba 19:3).Davidbena (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting and nicely done! But as I wrote, this is indeed WP:OR - you produced that explanation and that is strictly out of bounds. The way to handle this, is to find a scholarly, published secondary source that explains that same thing, and add a footnote with content based on that source, and cite that source. There are plenty of reliable sources discussing this issue! Jytdog (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
OK. I accept your analysis. What would you think then if we add a short source in a footnote, quoting only the Primary Source from Midrash Rabba - without explaining its import? After all, the same WP guidelines provide for Misplaced Pages articles being "based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." What do you think? Davidbena (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

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?

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)