User talk:Jytdog/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Help!

I think you may need to convince me to stop editing. What just happened was the wholesale deletion of well sourced content written by experienced editors. Maybe it was a mistake. Maybe it is unwritten rules. Maybe I am wrong. I am not sure any of these answers is good if the goal is Bob adding value to Wikipedia. Bob the goodwin (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I have replied to your concerns on the talk page. That's where this discussion should happen, and not through any canvassing. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey bull it is fine, I am watching the article too and saw what you did. Bob's question here goes way beyond the article itself. Just let us be - relevant content will be posted to Talk. Bob everything is OK, just breathe. I was actually thinking of doing that exact thing myself. Namely, cut and paste content from the main lyme disease article, leaving a stub there, and then considering how to edit to incorporate your "Lyme wars" content. Which, by the way, I think was too-hastily made into an article. It wasn't quite ready to be live in article space yet. We have plenty of time and space to blend now. This is great that we have a separate Controversies article to really work on now - your draft in userspace got this going and I am grateful for that. Everything is OK. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't care what the article ultimately says, as long it is not a lie or a whitewash. I like the consensus process. I did not create the Lyme wars page, I was encouraged to participate. I was hoping to have a conversation about controversy, and was hoping that there would be a way forward that decided what the tone should be. If I feel violated repeatedly, it means that I should turn over the user space to others. If I should not feel violated, then I am massively missing the purpose of the rules that Wikipedia has. How many accusations were thrown at me? How many accusations did I throw? Bob the goodwin (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall you making any accusations, or any accusations against you. If you feel violated (and I'm guessing here), it might have something to do with what we call "ownership" feelings. Even though you did not create the content, you are emotionally invested in it, and therefore feel concern for its fate. That's totally understandable and natural, but at Wikipedia, once an article "goes live", it's totally out of your hands. Others get involved and the original "authors" have little influence. They actually have fewer rights than other editors because they have a COI regarding the article.

Many times I have had to watch my best efforts deleted and/or radically revamped by others. My latest article (Charlotte's Web (cannabis)) had a hard start, but it survived and is a fairly good article.

To avoid problems with a future article, start it in your own user space. As long as it's there, it's "yours". Then, before going public, seek the input of experienced editors, especially those who hold opposing POV. They will point out problem areas you would never have noticed. Then heed their advice, seek more advice from other experienced editors, and finally go live when you're pretty sure everything is in order: format, references, headings, lede, NPOV, controversies, etc.. Then comes the hard part..... You must step back and let others take over. It can be very tempting to get defensive, so be careful. In the current situation, your role is to pick up the material you'd like to include, and see how to do it, working together with the other editors. Use the talk page to do this. We know you mean well and we'll help you. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

he did start it as a sandbox, bullrangifer - somebody pulled it into article space. i didn't pay attention to the details but i was surprised. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's news to me. I apparently misunderstood what he wrote above: "I did not create the Lyme wars page, I was encouraged to participate." -- Brangifer (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

yep i see how you got there. Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Bob, I completely hear you! I was very surprised originally when somebody moved your sandbox to article space... I know you didn't do it. I am very sorry you feel violated, that is terrible. I would have helped you reel it back to userspace if I knew you were upset about it being made into an article.. that should not have happened without your consent. As bullrangifer said, the thing about it going live, is that now it is a WIkipedia article and as per our motto "anybody can edit" it - it is no longer yours in any sense. I hope you can let that feeling of ownership go, now that it is out there. I intend to work on it and I will - I got sucked into another page. I have been thinking and reading about lyme a lot (thanks to you!) and it has been fascinating. I think there is lots and lots we can do with the article to bring out the true controversy more. This deals with so many things I care about - what does the science actually say (in all its ugly ambiguity) and what are people doing with that ambuiguity - how much bullshit is being thrown around that is too strong for what the actual science will bear? Please don't despair. I reviewed the talk pages and you seem to have conducted yourself very well, in the midst of major changes! Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Bob has been very polite through all this process. Kudos for that! Now we must move forward. What really bothers me is that someone took his content and went live with it. That's VERY wrong! -- Brangifer (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

NO NO NO. I am partially guilty here. I was convinced my another editor to move forward because I had completely given up, and had written an article on a well known political blog about the capture of Wikipedia by mainstream medicine. He thought I should continue, and when he realized I wouldn't I gave him permission to work with it. I was too scared to ever be an editor again. Admittedly I was surprised when the article went live (as opposed to being fixed in the sandbox), but I did not object, and tried to work with everyone to keep it balanced. I did get caught holding the bag when he disappeared.Bob the goodwin (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I trust JYTDOG completely, and am NOT saying WHAT I want in the pages. I just want to be respected in the dialog even if I offer minority opinions, and I have a hard time with surprises. I consider {OWN} an accusation. I consider {OR} an accusation. I consider {POV} an accusation. I am smart enough to know better (even though I make mistakes, and when I do I appreciate the accusation). I objected to what appeared like a bait and switch. JYTDOG told me to be cool. So cool I are. If JYTDOG is involved I am sure that my bullshit detector will at least get a voice. I do not expect to win most of the time. I don't even expect to be right most of the time. I just think the controversy is much more complex than people realize (except the science part, which is quite simple, really.).Bob the goodwin (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I would actually prefer to do homework in the sandbox (and get requests for more research, or to rework sections), and let others pull out content. But I would like us to be generous with honest information. Bob the goodwin (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bob - you have a keen (a little too keen!) awareness that you are still learning how Wikipedia works. Like I don't think you understood (and therefore you didn't really consent) to your sandbox page being made a live article. Everybody has a learning curve here. I am still learning things too - I still have very weak understand about how the all the drama boards really work. But there are very few things that you can when acting boldly that will be actually be a bad thing. (One of those very few things, is changing another user's comment's without their prior consent, like you did in this dif. The right thing to do there would have been to ask Bull on his talk page if he would delete the link or if he would give you permission to do it.) (Please know that anything you write anywhere in WIkipedia is public; nothing here is private. If you want to communicate with me privately via email, that is always fine. But we are not doing anything sneaky or bad, so from my perspective we can keep things on our Talk pages.) But back to what I was saying - I hope you don't take corrections as "accusations" - that is too loaded. The key thing (as you wrote!) is to learn from mistakes. And I will definitely do my best to help keep the content aligned with our policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed the removed link thing and will chalk that one up to a "newbie mistake". Just don't do it again. Pointing out some of our policies and guidelines is not meant as an accusation, so take it as information and advice. We know you have a lot to learn, and we've been there. We're all still learning. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing to hide. I just didn't think this talk page was relevant. And I wouldn't have made the link here in the first place, but I was apparently wrong. People only follow us here if it matters to them. And I am glad that Bull is interested in what I am saying. Every editor I have gotten to know has been an amazing person. I am presuming he is very interested in this topic, which means we have the potential to make an excellent article that has a neutral voice, excellent sources, and informs people who might otherwise go to quack sites absent our explaining a full understanding of the controversy. I do think that quoting rules can be an assertion of power, when real power comes from open discussion. People spend a lot of time talking about each other, and I think we should instead get the article right. Jytdog knows the rules, so if he sees bullshit he will work within the rules to make the encyclopedia better. I can guarantee you that the current article is repelling people we might otherwise be able to keep within reality. Readers have bullshit detectors too. You guys are the experts. I am still sure I can help. If nothing else, I will keep being bold, and that will keep the conversation moving.

I have been studying how to judge journals. There was an accusation made that the publication of articles was being cornered. I don't even know if that is possible, but given the very small number of journals with significant influence it seems mathematically possible. I know that the peptic ulcer folks made the same claim (cornering of influence), and ultimately got a Nobel prize, but only after doing a PR stunt and publicizing it through a sensational news rag. The accusation though, is quite clear in 1993 by Burrascano in front of the US Senate, and it may have been the accusation (and not the truth of the accusation) that turned the war red hot. Read pseudo science. The entire field of Lyme disease (both sides of the medicine and especially the lyme loonies) is filled with examples that match the descriptions. Especially the part about "science stops progressing". Bob the goodwin (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

by accusation that publication of journals was being cornered... what accusation are you referring to? would be interested to see. It wasn't so much about "hiding" as privacy, which is a different matter... people seek advice privately all the time. Jytdog (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It was an accusation made by Burrascano. It exists in the congressional record that was uploaded by User:Carriearchdale but was deleted with the article 'rename'. It also exists in a number of the RS articles about the controversy. When I have time I will look back through my sandbox for a reference. The reference takes two forms (sorry, for now from memory): (1) Burrascano claiming research capture clearly and unambiguously in his testimony, (2) reporting that even recently Wormser was going to medical conferences and "going up and down the hallways killing research on active infections." A agree with you on the separate point that the IDSA made claims of privacy regarding their deliberation in the aftermath of Blumenthal.Bob the goodwin (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Here are a pile of links. I make no assertions about the quality of the links, but it gives you a sense of the type of accusations being made. This could be evidence of just bad blood, but maybe there is more. I am still looking for the wormser at medical conference reference.

• See page 57 for burrascano testimony with brutal accusations
• Wormser: “Right now, in the published literature, there is no evidence of persistence in humans, and if there were I would say, ‘So what?’ ” he told me recently. “You would have to show me that the spirochetes continue to produce disease and you would have to show me that they would respond to antibiotics.”
• “It’s a relatively small group who seem to have control,” said Dr. Daniel Cameron, a Westchester County Lyme physician and past president of the opposition Lyme society. “That system keeps most of the funding channeled to the same doctors who are grading the evidence.”
• Indeed, Yale University and New York Medical College, home to eight of 14 guideline authors, placed first and second in research awards, receiving a combined $34 million since 1997, federal records show. Biopeptides Inc., the company founded by Dattwyler, the conference planner, received more than $5 million and placed tenth among 54 institutions that received at least $1 million
• The emails show that Phillip Baker of NIH and Barbara Johnson of CDC arranged an invitation-only conference (known as the Banbury conference) in 2007 to assess the state of Lyme disease diagnostic tests; working with Baker, Dr. Johnson solicited a list of invitees from Dr. Dattwyler, who also was named as a co-sponsor on the invitation for the government-sponsored conference. My question to NIH was whether is was proper for an IDSA scientist to be involved in planning such a meeting, in particular when he had founded in 2001 and maintained an interest in a profit-making company that at the time of the conference was developing a Lyme disease test. The company, Biopeptides, has received $3.5 million in NIH grants for the development of a Lyme test since 2007, government records show.

• wormser reporting 15% success rate from ELISA test before it was approved

• this is probably fringe, but it goes into detail on how the consensus did bad science and created an ineffective diagnostic. It has all the science cited, but I am not qualified to judge it.Bob the goodwin (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

oh myyyyyyyyyyyyyyy... In my opinion discussions of this type above type are the reason for abandonment of Wikipedia by many newer editors. What happened to "no biting of the newer editors?"

but in need my opinion this discussion above was not merely BITING, I would have to pen a new phrase, shredding a new editor from limb to limb!

I apologize to Bob the Goodwin for my short absence. I was undergoing my own type of 911 emergency. Can't we all just get along? quoting Rodney King

Regards to Bob the Goodwin , and ciao to everyone else.

ciao and regards... Carriearchdale (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Carriearchdale you make me happy. But let me make a full throated defense of each individual. I have written in a political blog about my experience, and also submitted an abstract to Wikimania. I have been devastated repeatedly by my experience here. But every single human being involved has been awesome when I have gotten to know them. The reason we are all attracted to this environment is the exact same reason that it is so easily gamed and so aggressive. Facts are precious to a society, and Wikipedia is leaving a particularly powerful set of facts to the most willful gangs of intellectuals. Although I am very sick, in a way this is freeing me. I may not have time to lick my wounds. If the quacks are wrong - as seems most likely - then I am on the decline. So the fact that I have taken repeated shovels to the head is not that surprising. It is important intellectually that in our new world we learn a better set of tools than head-shovels, but I hope that neuropsychotics in the future can have influence on the bad facts of the age. Like everyone else on this thread listening, I am not trying to right any wrongs. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. But the reason for this grand experiment exists is because facts should be allowed to be free from abuse. Sunlight is the best policy. So how is Bull or Jytdog supposed to react to a "Bob?" These guys are chasing quacks 24/7, and many of these quacks behaved better than I did. As I become friends with Bull, Jytog, and maybe eventually even Jobol, then I will be able to bring sunshine to places these truth fighters didn't even realize was full of bullshit. I can live with that. But I do assert that most newcomers will slither away. Bull and Jobol should not change, but if Wikipedia does not change then the experiment is at risk. Wikipedia is the ONLY crowd sourced site that has credibility in the universe, and it is policed by gangs (of good guys) that is not sustainable.

To be specific, let me give you the good attributes of many of the editors who have touched my experience. Jytdog listened to me on my talk page when I was in serious distress and pulled me back. I asked him to influence me. I still ask him to influence me. But instead he listened. and listened. Bull is the essence of bold. The lyme pages are a disaster. He took a step, and was willing to plow through the corpses to get there. I may have had a small role in this, as my mistakes triggered actions. Once past the crisis he is awesome at collaboration. I expect to be in the minority. I expect to make mistakes. I am thrilled to have engagement. Jobol is a borderline deletionist. I watched him for a few weeks. I am thrilled at the level of crap that he disposes per day. Maybe because Lyme got onto Quackwatch, it spurred gangs to watch people like me. I would get reverted within minutes repeatedly. Jobol does not have TIME for debate. I bet he his awesome in real life too. Bull and Jytdog got mad at ScepticalChemist, perhaps because they wanted to give me a pass. He is a wonderful person too. I do not want to put words in his mouth, but I know he was sympathetic to my assertion that Wikipedia was captured by the people in power. His advise may have been wrong, but he took a side, he made an effort, and the ball is moving again, which would not have been true otherwise. Carrie was the only person who directly said anything nice to me (outside of long conversations with Jytdog), also BlueRasberry was kind too. I see nothing but a vast sea of good intention in a very difficult social experiment. Regards to all.Bob the goodwin (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Qigong Article

Hi Jydog. I would like to understand how you see your role concerning the Qigong talk page discussion concerning the research lead. Are you on board with reaching consensus on improving the research lead? Are we anywhere close to achieving this, and how do you recommend proceeding? TheProfessor (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Again, Jytdog. I am writing in response to your lengthy discussion on the Qigong Talk page. Insofar as this is a discussion between you and me, and diverging from the substance of a thread, I suggest we discuss here.

First, why am I continuing to focus on the lead? Honestly I'd just like to get to a stopping point where my efforts mean something. Thus I published what I thought was agreed upon and faithfully follows Wikipedia guidelines, found myself challenged for no reason, and found myself in discussion that feels off track, and not necessarily convergent on an end point. I think it is reasonable for you to reinstate the edits you reverted based on an error, so we can move on. As I understand, you would rather just move on. I agree that efforts would be better focused on the body. All of this is in the aftermath of a rather wearing frenzy of activity.

Second, in terms of WP:LEAD, yes I understand your point, though in part I have a different view. Yes, "Editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material... The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." I understand you want to avoid redundant citations. My preference would be to use more references rather than less, especially for an article like qigong that can become such a grab bag, and also because of my academic training, which compels me to use a reference the first time a subject is brought up (though I understand the lead is more like an abstract which may not be referenced). At this stage I don't want to do a disservice to the article with piecemeal changes. You are making a point by removing the references in the lead, but please not at the expense of the article. Case and point, the definition of qi in the lead was different from that in the body, and I had noticed this, and even intend to resolve it, ideally by bringing the lead in line with the body, and in line with the Qi article. The latter two definitions you brought forward from the body are not as commonly used and the one in quotes in the lead is more commonly used. In this case it might make sense to leave it alone unless you have time to do the work. This is leading us off track, which of course is your point, as well.

Third, I appreciate you trying to move things forward by asking me to focus on the impediments to quality research, explicitly "lack of funding for research, impracticality of double blinding, and difficulty of standardized controls and treatment dosing (frequency, duration, and intensity of treatment". I'm not sure how readily we can back this with MEDRS sources. As a starting point, Lee et al. 2011 emphasizes small sample size and inadequate controls, but frankly I need to go back through the systematic reviews and other sources, and the information may be scattered.

Fourth, rather, my approach would be to have a good outline of the section and choose priorities. TheProfessor (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi thanks for talking. This is actually very fine discussion for the article - you are talking all about content. Your point about the definition of "qi" is great and should be made on the Talk page so it is part of the archive there.... can we take this back to the article? Thanks. I would be happy to respond more there. Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I moved the discussion back to Talk page. I will likely be away from discussion for a while to take care or myself, and will come back renewed and ready to contribute in a slower and more measured way. TheProfessor (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

i hope your break is indeed refreshing - i look forward to more free flowing article improvments! i think we are well aligned. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Tyrone Hayes

Greetings! I saw your edit taking out the location of the defunct EcoRisk company. I'd suggest it is relevant because the name of the company was taken by a different outfit and is still currently in use, but headquartered in a different city. If you merely search "EcoRisk" now, only the newer company material comes up without adding the location of the headquarters of the old company. It may be a minor point. I leave it to you to decide one way or the other now knowing why it was there. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up! signifying the location isn't very helpful to that end - we can make a footnote to explicitly state that. i'll do that now. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine

You seemed to have inadvertently removed <ref name="Chrubasik 2010"> while there were other refs using it. I copied the ref to a different cite. Errors like this should be communicated to the editor before the article is saved. Seems like that wouldn't be too difficult to implement. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

thanks for fixing that! Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

COI

Thanks for the kind words there. My faith in the system here has been boosted greatly by the very rational response to this recent accusation of witchcraft. Quite a change from my experience last year, but perhaps mainly because I've learned a few things.Formerly 98 (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome! It was more about spanking the SPA; people who are inexperienced go wrong in many ways, especially when they come here with an ax to grind and other editors don't accept the content they introduce - sliding into dark thoughts of COI and conspiracies is a too-common route. Getting blocked for edit warring is another. This guy is hitting all the marks of someone who is new and refuses to learn. Sorry that you got hassled that way. Glad it was closed already. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Lesson learned

I hope that you are willing to work with others in an open-minded fashion, Jytdog,. Unfortunately, I doubt that you will, since you didn't appear to have understood what Atami said in the COI. I was expecting a scholarly environment, not a blog - but I was also expecting people to be friendly and welcoming. Lesson learned - people are mean and nasty on Wikipedia. I feel harassed and abused, hounded mercilessly. The tactic where you pretend to be reasonable for a while and then you change your mind and refuse to compromise was especially effective. I hope you are happy - you've successfully run me off. Congratulations. CJ (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for talking, although I don't believe you really came to my Talk page to have a conversation. (Surprise me, please!) You ignored Atama's judgement that you were very close to POV-pushing. I hope you take a moment and re-read what he wrote there. His concern with POV is more serious to him than any COI. And as I wrote to you, WP:ADVOCACY and WP:COI are closely related. In any case, you are right, that our conversation on the qigong Talk page was not rational. Wikipedia has sourcing policies & guidelines that provide the foundation for rational conversation about content in Wikipedia; I told you this many times and tried very very hard to tell you about them, and how we use them. You chose not to engage with those policies, which made rational conversation impossible. Writing about what you feel or believe, is just not rational conversation on Wikipedia. Creating straw polls for content, in which no sources are presented, is not how we do things. You consistently chose every way but engaging with the best MEDRS-compliant sources available, in your effort to get more positive content into the article. If you decide to come back, I hope you choose to learn our sourcing policies and guidelines and how we generate content from them, and that you engage in rational conversation based on them. Which is indeed a fun and interesting (exhilarating, even) scholarly conversation to have. To the extent you are too busy to do that, I totally respect your decision to stop editing. Good luck to you, where ever you go! Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Surprise!

I don't know why I'm continuing to continue this discussion, but I think, underneath it all, you are actually a decent person and not the arrogant, mean-spirited person which you sometimes come across as in the stark world of text-only. Being the eternal optimist, I have faith you might actually listen to me and make some changes that would improve Wikipedia overall - for everyone. Your userpage reveals you to be dedicated and hardworking, so I will assume that your poor treatment of me is an anomaly, but hopefully one you wish to avoid again.

Let's start with the idea that a person must be an expert in the culture of Wikipedia before contributing to any articles. Really? I will tell you this is a new phenomenon, because in 2006, when I first joined Wikipedia that was not considered appropriate. Everyone was welcome, and people's contributions were valued for their content, not how well they argued about the esoteric guidelines. It is a very effective "club" a Wikipedian can bash over the heads of newbies, and unfortunately it seems to have become habitual on the part of Wikipedians. "You must be one of us," is the underlying sentiment, "and to be one of us you must spend years mastering the intricacies of our culture." Quite frankly, the reason you get a lot of people complaining about suppression of ideas is because it is true. Wikipedians are controlling the content by refusing to let anyone who isn't "one of them" add anything.

Secondly, we are not really talking about knowing Wikipedia guidelines, because I have read all the guidelines - both years ago and now. I followed all the guidelines to the letter. What you are talking about is your interpretation of the guidelines, which differs significantly from the written guidelines. So you are setting yourself up as the "keeper of the rules", but the "rules" to which you refer are written only in your head. Your own self-COI investigations demonstrate your thinking - you are passionate about the five pillars of Wikipedia - perhaps a bit too passionate. From the outside, it appears that you do it to keep complete control over content - you make yourself king of the article. Anyone who differs in their interpretation of the guidelines deserves to be pilloried and abused. After all, you are the ruler, even though you are enforcing your misinterpretation of the rules, not the actual rules. Your "reporting" of me for conflict of interest is a prime example. I was right about the interpretation of COI according to Atami, but instead of acknowledging that and (perhaps) apologizing, you jump on the next misinterpretation - POV. Your very passion about the pillars of Wikipedia are blinding you to your use of them to promote bias by suppressing dissension.

I have published half-a-dozen scholarly articles in peer-reviewed juried academic journals. Of course I know what an impartial point of view, and I have not changed any article so that it was biased. I am simply trying to correct the bias that already exists in the article. It is human nature for us not to see our own biases, so I understand that. I therefore recommend that you should be the one to read the warnings and understand the information that Atami has cited. You are highly biased, and accuse anyone who tries to "even the playing field" as being the biased one. Of course I tried to put positive information about Qigong in the article - because there was already too much negative information. It is the BALANCE that enables the impartial point of view. That's what Atami said, and that's the way it's ALWAYS been on Wikipedia. You, on the other hand, are misinterpreting the rules and therefore are suppressing one side while allowing the other side. A big no-no.

Thirdly, you make yourself king of some articles over which you have no knowledge. I had contacted another editor to help me, and they said that many experts in topics have problems because they feel that their expertise and knowledge, acknowledged in the real world through degrees and peer-reviewed publications, are not accepted on Wikipedia. Only here would someone with a doctorate in a field, with several peer-reviewed publications and/or books on a topic - only in this world would this person be ignored while an anonymous nobody with no publications or books is the "final word" on an article simply because they have nothing better to do with their time than to sit and watch to make sure no one is changing anything. Note - I am not saying that you are that person - I know very little about you. For all I know you have an advanced degree in Qigong and/or Integrative Medicine, and have several published books or peer reviewed articles. I don't know because, unlike me, you have not revealed who you are. (Though frankly, your comments about not combining Tai Chi and Qigong is rather revealing since, if you were experienced, you would know that Tai Chi is a type of Qigong, and that what is used in research is actually Qigong, though they call it Tai Chi. But that is getting into details beyond what is appropriate for an encyclopedia article.)

In summary, this is the last you will hear from me. My advice to you is what I said before; don't just suppress change. Your recent discussions with the Professor, for example, are very reasonable. Ensure that there is a balance of positive to negative, and be nice, not nasty to new people. Just because you are civil doesn't mean that you cannot be nasty - you can be civil and nasty. Try to be civil and nice. For example, don't quote esoteric Wikipedia rules by their acronyms, simply suggest to new people an alternative wording that would be acceptable that conveys what they are trying to say (even if you don't personally agree with it). Remember that sometimes the established sources themselves are biased, so you may need to widen your universe of possible sources in order to maintain an impartial point of view. Keep with the spirit of the pillars. Work a little harder to be helpful, not toxic, to people you think are newcomers, and you will improve Wikipedia for everyone. CJ (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Thank you for talking! It is clear that our interaction is sticking in your craw, and I hope we can talk this through, so you can be free of it. First let me acknowledge that I can be too blunt sometimes, and this can lead to hurt feelings. I am sorry I hurt your feelings. I acknowledge that. But you are still missing the boat; you are not listening to me or Atama at all. What happened is going to keep sticking in your craw, until you can see your part in this. I am going to write you a long and careful reply, but at this point I have little hope that you have "ears to hear." But here goes...

1) Well hm. This is a hard point. Do you have to be an expert in Wikipedia's guidelines to contribute? No, you don't. It is very possible to add content, make suggestions, etc, without being an expert. However, what you did, was not just "contribute" but engage in an extended argument for specific content. Very different thing. When there are disagreements on Wikipedia, as there was on the qigong page, the policies and guidelines ("PAG" for short from here on) are essential for resolving the dispute. There is a framework we reason from, and you just ignored it. Instead of engaging with the framework (the guidelines and policies) that govern content, you (as Atama wrote) just kept trying to throw anything you could against the wall to try to get something to stick. Big waste of everybody's time. Your choice! You need to own that. I tried very hard to teach you and you wouldn't hear it. Very hard. I did not leave you out in the cold. I tried. Like I am trying now. You would not listen. Really, you need to own that.

2) You write: "So you are setting yourself up as the "keeper of the rules", but the "rules" to which you refer are written only in your head." Not true. MEDRS is not a fantasy; it exists. I followed MEDRS, as did Yobol and Roxy. And the Professor (more on that later) did too. The interpretation of MEDRS is pretty simple - you find the best and most recent source, as defined in MEDRS, and generate content from it. This didn't get you the result you wanted, so you gave that up and tried alternate means. Again, your choice. With respect to the COI thing, I wrote both on your Talk page and in COIN posting, that it may have been more of an advocacy (please read that link!) issue than a COI issue (they are related and overlap some), and Atama heard that. I linked to his post above, but I will copy it here and add some emphasis to try (again) to get you to hear it.

Let me add, looking over the talk page for the Qigong article, I see a persistent and nearly relentless attempt to put something positive into the article, something that tries to make a more definitive declaration that Qigong can bring a positive benefit to a patient/practitioner. I have no doubt that this stems directly from CJ's personal (and perhaps life-changing) experience and advocacy. (NB: that is a very clear statement that your behavior is over the line) To be fair, CJ has been non-confrontational and willing to take matters to discussion rather than forcing the issue too strongly. And far be it from me to criticize someone for trying to promote something that they felt has given them a better quality of life. But I still think that this feels like a "throw everything against the wall until something sticks" approach, almost to the point of a polite tendentiousness. You may consider going to WP:NPOVN with this problem, that is the noticeboard that deals with attempts to skew articles toward a particular POV, and may help you get more independent opinions on the subject. Finally, this is a case where I can't argue too strongly if someone says that CJ does have a COI, in this case the circumstances are such that it may as well be one (the result is the same), I just can't bring myself to objectively say that a COI is the issue (not as I understand COI here on Wikipedia).

Do you hear that? "the result is the same". That pretty much sums it up. In Atama's view - and mine - your behavior was off, and importantly, likely actionable. I brought you to COIN because my efforts to get you to engage with PAG and to reason based on PAG were getting no where, and I needed to bring some authority to bear, to get you to listen - to hear there was a problem - and start working within them. If you hadn't given up and left, my next move would indeed have been going to NPOVN as per Atama's recommendation. (he is an admin, by the way - he has the power to block people - something we do not to be punitive, but to get people to recognize that their behavior is problematic - to get their attention so they will learn and change their behavior.) My goal was NOT to shut you up. Rather, to get you to engage with the framework we use to generate content so that we could have a rational and productive conversation. You are having a hard time hearing me, but I mean that. My goal was not to shut you up; it was to try to get you to play by the rules so we could have a productive interaction, instead of the crappy one that we had.

3) It is perfectly accurate that no one's personal authority means a damn thing here. I am sorry that you don't understand this, as it is one of the truly brilliant fundamental things that makes this encyclopedia "that anyone can edit" actually work. We rely on published secondary sources, not on anyone's personal authority. We are nothing like the primary or the secondary scientific literature itself; in that realm, authors are well known, their reputation matters very much, and we look to known leaders in the field to generate syntheses that state the consensus in a given field as that consensus evolves. Wikipedia is nothing like that. Here, anonymous editors identify the best and most recent secondary sources, study them, and generate content based on them. No original research, no syntheses. Not allowed. We have no means to validate if anybody is who they say they are, and in fact, we do not care. We do not care! (you could or could not be the CJ Rhoads whose information you link to on your userpage. I don't care; it doesn't matter here) Again, you betray fundamental misunderstandings of how Wikipedia works, even though you claim to be very familiar with PAG and with how Wikipedia works. As I write on my Userpage, when editors bring competence in the subject matter and competence in PAG and work in good faith, things can be very intellectually stimulating and even fun. Lose one of those aspects, and things can become hellish pretty quickly. In your case, you appear to be very competent in some aspects of the subject matter but took a willfully ignorant (!) stance with regard to PAG and were POV-pushing. We lost two out of the three key aspects. Again, I hope one day you will be able to see this.

I also write on my Userpage that some humility - an openness to learning - is very important for there to be good interactions. Nobody knows everything and everybody is limited by their experience. I have acknowledged that you very likely (very!) know more about qigong than I do. I know a fraction of what there is to be learned. But there is plenty that I do know. And I have tried to teach you how Wikipedia works. To be blunt, you are one of the most learning-resistant editors I have dealt with here. I am an optimist, big-time - I have spent all this time responding to you because I hope you will learn. I italicize and bold things and repeat myself because I am trying to get through to you. I believe everybody can learn. I believe you could be a great Wikipedia contributor if you would take the time to learn how we do things.

4) What you write here is crazy making. "sometimes the established sources themselves are biased." You just don't get it, that personal authority means nothing here, and the best and most recent reliable sources are all that matters. That is absolutely fundamental to Wikipedia. Absolutely. Perhaps one of Wikipedia's fundamental flaws, but as I wrote above, essential to its functioning. With regard to the Professor, the reason why the interaction is going well so far, is that unlike you, he is working very much in the framework of PAG. He understood the need and utility of working with PAG pretty early on in the conversation. I don't think you noticed how his behavior - the nature of his arguments - changed, but it did. I am very very welcoming of new editors; I try to lead them to the water, but there is nothing I can do if they refuse to drink -- if they refuse to engage with PAG, as you did and still continue to do. And when I say, "engage with PAG" I do not mean wikilawyering - I mean understanding their spirit and applying them to the best of your ability.

Best regards Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like, at first impression, that you wasted your time, Jytdog. WP:IDHT through and through. I'll read more thoroughly, and then decide if it is worth commenting on individual points. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I know nothing about what's going on at the page in question, but my reaction is similar to Roxy's. It sounds to me like Jytdog has been a paradigm of patience and civility in the face of some rather unpleasant comments. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

On Wikipedia?!?

I see there's a thank-you above for helpful comments re COI -- well, here's another; this is some of the best advice I've ever seen here, to any user. Is this really WP?? Far from tl;dr; I am impressed and grateful that you took the time to look over the background and consider multiple factors. Yes, I am stepping back some. A little more later... --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 02:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, and for taking what I wrote with such a generous spirit. Especially when you have been dealing with such difficult, thumping personalities on the other side, on issues that are some of the most difficult in Wikipedia (alt med and within that, treatments based on TCM) where nuance and careful thinking all around are so important for building great WP content together, but too often people bring broad generalizations and, well, thumping. Thank you again, and thanks for your great work here. Jytdog (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Toxicology

I think my thoughts on this are lining up with you and DocJames that primary sources cannot be allowed. There are just far too many people here with an ax to grind.

Did you ever contact the toxicology people? I am very busy with a project now (and fooling around with WP way too much for my circumstances) but could provide a few paragraphs on the in vitro and non-clincal (animal)toxicology testing required by the FDA pre-approval, and how in complements the clinical safety data. I probably have some reference somewhere for the pitfalls of in vitro assays at high concentrations, though a lot of that type of stuff is "common knowledge" not really written down very often. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

i have reached out to them and another guy too, waiting to hear! so nice to have an ally on the tox thing. i was starting to feel like a crazy person. Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Belated response

I've finally replied to your message on my talk page. Sorry to be so little help. CWC 12:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171

I read what you wrote in response to my comments on the COI page. I am writing here so not to clog up the COI page. I can document every one of the claims I listed on that page, claims Mrm7171 made either about me or about OHP. I am fed up with the cascade of phoney claims he makes. OHP is a subdiscipline of i/o. OHP is now a subdiscipline of health psychology. Then back to OHP is a subdiscipline of i/o. That I don't like Tom Cox, a leader in the field. SOHP is a club. The quote at the end is from RichardKeatinge, an editor whom Mrm7171 professes to like. Could you imagine the views of Wikipedia editors whom Mrm7171 professes to dislike! Iss246 (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this off the COI page. I understand that you are frustrated and I understand why. Atama is a very experienced administrator. I recommend that you put a message on his Talk page, or email him, to ask his advice about how you should proceed if you want to try to have mrm topic-banned (which is probably the most you can hope for). You may also want to ask advice of whatever admin blocked mrm in the past. Whatever board you end up, I recommend you take some time to read the instructions carefully, and to read other entries and pay careful attention to how cases are stated - you will find examples that are swiftly resolved and others that are not; quite often unresolved ones end up that way because the original case was badly stated under the norms of that board. Above you say that you can document every one of the claims you listed; that is irrelevant. The fact that you didn't do that when you first posted it, is the problem. It makes you look almost as bad as mrm (kind of worse in some ways, since he did bring difs). The fact that you beat that dead horse here makes you look even worse. (!) These are the kind of mistakes that will tank your case at whatever board you might bring this to. Finally, as I said above, I do understand that Mrm has been all over you and that this has been very unpleasant. Nonetheless, as I wrote on the COI page, I gave the difs he presented a look, and in my opinion as an uninvolved editor, you have a bit of an advocacy issue that you should be careful of. You didn't ask me to say more about that, so I won't. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your frankness. You are an even-handed editor. As someone who has not been party to my dispute with Mrm7171, I take issue with your view that I may have a bit of an advocacy problem.

I explain with an analogy. I created the entry for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) because I thought it was needed. It is a professional organization for i/o psychologists. Does creating and editing the entry make me an advocate of SIOP or i/o. I don't think so unless one uses the term advocacy so broadly that anyone who creates an entry is an advocate. I thought there was a gap. I thought SIOP merited an entry on Wikipedia.

What if another editor insisted that I remove the SIOP entry, or said that the entry should include text that says SIOP is a bogus organization. I would respond that removing SIOP or including a statement that it is a bogus organization was a bad idea. Would my response to the other editor's attempt make me an advocate of SIOP? That is the situation I am in but instead of SIOP I am confronted with a person who makes destructive edits around OHP. Iss246 (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

you don't know what i meant, and you didn't ask. both of your questions appear rhetorical. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I do understand you, and your reference to difs. The difs are not hard to produce. What I want to do here in this paragraph is address one issue. My goal here is to challenge the idea that I am an advocate or borderline advocate. I used the above example of SIOP for the purpose of illustrating what I mean. That anyone who creates an encyclopedia entry (SIOP for example) risks being deemed an advocate, particularly if an uninformed person says to the creator, "You are advertising SIOP" or "SIOP is just a club and doesn't belong in the encyclopedia." Since I created the entry for SIOP and the entry for SOHP, I am sensitive to the advocacy charge, and want to dispel it. Iss246 (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

i doubt you understand what i view as your issue with advocacy since you never asked me, and your "defense" missed the boat. how can you dispel what you don't understand? i invited you to ask me twice now. if you want to hear it, ask me. but ask me only if you want to hear it. i am not playing games with you - i just want you to be ready to listen. otherwise such a discussion is a big waste of time.Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

btw, have you read WP:ADVOCACY and thought about it a bit? Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand perfectly. It is a bit off-putting to tell someone what he does or does not understand as if the teller can get inside the mind of someone else. I make every attempt to write in a neutral and verifiable manner, which is what the advocacy article and other Wikipedia documents underline. I am not recruiting people to join or admire SOHP or SIOP or any other organization. I am not advocating for the wonders of those orgranizations or anything else.

On Aug 15, 2013, Mrn wrote on the OHP talk page: "So, editors can see my point from this Society of OHP definition, you have on your SOHP club website." He repeated words to this effect several times. They are trackable. But I did not come to this page to write much more about the "club" accusation. I wanted to take our discussion off the COI page, which is long enough. The way I see it is that with my attempts to redress Mrm's efforts to make SOHP and EA-OHP into clubs when they are scholarly organizations I am made to look like an advocate. I draw a similar conclusion that when Mrm tries to make OHP into a subdiscipline of i/o psychology and then a subdiscipline of health psychology and then back again to a subdiscipline of i/o, I am made to look like an advocate.

Maybe you see it differently. That's okay with me. I will just say that you have different points of view. Iss246 (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

hey - your head is clearly locked into the mrm battle; i gave you all the advice i had about that already in my first post and that was all i have to say about it. nothing you have said corresponds to what i see as your advocacy issue, which has nothing to do with mrm and which you cannot know, as I have not articulated it. I gotta say for somebody with "psychology" in the title of your field, you are a spectacularly bad listener :) but like i said, you are clearly locked-in on your mrm situation. so go fight that battle! good luck with it. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog. Thanks for your fair and objective assessment of what clearly appears to be a 6 year history of advocacy and promotion by iss246 and more recently their 'OHP' society colleague psyc12. Just as a lot of other psychology editors have 'crossed swords' with iss246 and found themselves in dispute, you now have had a 'taste' yourself, it seems, based on commentary above. Sweet if you agree, acidic if not. But anyway. The reason I posted on COI was to bring the other community in to comment on what seems pretty strong evidence for advocacy and promotion over a very long period of time and has caused disruptive editing at the very least. I am also not, and do not want to be, in battle with iss246 by the way. Editors using Wikipedia for advocacy and promotion should be everyone's problem, not the editor's who bring it to everyone's attention. In fact, I have found myself backing down, avoiding topics, stepping back and so on, and 'scared off' from these articles, for the past couple of months. Edit history shows this. I am also a professional in the real world, and know a thing or two about these topics. However I have taken the time and energy to objectively bring these matters to the community forum as advised and would like an outcome after 6 years of this unabated editing by iss246 and now psyc12. I wonder if you could please provide some further advice. I am seeking resolutions here from administrators, but iss246&psyc12 have blatantly ignored your opinion and indeed Atama's fair and objective summation and direction so far and continued on with 'business as usual' it seems. Thanks for your time. It is appreciated.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your note, mrm7171. Atama gave his judgement and summary at COIN an on the whole matter, and that seemed pretty reasonable to me. I am not interested in getting involved in the dispute between you and the other editors. But thanks again for your note, and good luck. I do hope you carefully read the remarks that Atama directed to you and change your behavior accordingly. In interpersonal disputes like the one you are in, I know that it is very hard to stop looking at the other guy and to look at yourself. But the dispute will never go away unless both parties do that. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog. Thank you for responding. Given these are your own comments above, based on your objective asssessment; " i see as your advocacy issue, which has nothing to do with mrm and which you cannot know, as I have not articulated it. could you please explain that to the community and readers then. Specifically could you explain why you believe there is advocacy and promotional issues with iss246 and psyc12's editing, based on the 6 years of diffs involving 'OHP', and iss246's society of 'OHP'. Administrator Atama, you, I, and all of the other editors over 6 years (many of which iss246 has had conflict with), have believed there are real and 'actual' advocacy and/or promotional issues here. It is therefore a 'community' issue? However it seems based on your interaction with iss246 that you too, may have been 'scared off'like me, and other editors like DrW had between 2009 and 2011, after trying to sort it out with iss246 and also seemed to me to be 'scared off,' and/or gave up too? see [1] and so many other good faith editors. Please help the community deal with these advocacy issues that as you say, and I agree, "which has nothing to do with mrm. It is not of benefit, surely, to leave uncovered promotional and/or advocacy editing, by advocates of the Society for 'OHP' members. These are important psychology articles and the community and the encyclopedia deserves unbiased, neutral reliable sourced articles? You can reply on my talk page. But you don't have to of course. Thank you for your objective and fair assessment and conclusions, at any rate, after viewing all the diffs provided.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

blech. no. just like Iss246 you seem oblivious to your own issues. please leave me out of your fracas. Jytdog (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments about my behavior too Jytdog. I am always open to improving my own editing, and like to think, based on my edit history for past 50 or so days at least, it's been on the 'upswing'? I am also open to scrutiny of my own editing here, so if you thought, after looking at my recent edit history, that I needed to improve in any area, I'm more than open to listening to that too (and on my own talk page) if you like. Seriously, but that is completely up to you on that.

However it is also obviously, your objective assessment of what you believed were advocacy issues by iss246 and the current case at COIN. I do agree that Atama's summation was accurate and fair in all their comments, not just about iss246 and psyc12 either but my own behavior in the past too. In response I have 'stepped right back' rather than get involved in edit warring. My edit history for the past 50 days shows that. I hope at least. Anyway I'm now 'scared off' by iss246 too, actually. Shouldn't be that way. Anyway thanks for your final assessment of the COI case I raised. That is why I presented the case for the community to look at and assess independently at the appropriate forum. Will leave it right there though. Apologies for responding here on your talk page.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

About Genetically Modified Food.

Hi Jytdog, thank you for your feedback and i will definitely put the information in "Golden Rice" section. However, people seek Wikipedia as their first source. This is the place that most people get their first knowledge about GM food. You cant expect them to know what you know, and i think it needs to be there for the people who's new to Genetically Modified Food. In fact, i am not deleting or changing idea of the article,the information that i am adding is harmless to the article but important knowledge for the readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shur0620 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! Everybody has their pet project. Right? The reason articles are split off, is because "head" articles get too long, and it makes sense to do some actual "editing" and create subarticles. That is how the encylopedia grows. However, when people come in and just add information to the head article, the split-off article falls out of "sync" with the main article. This is a bad thing for the encylopedia! So please do add the information to the Golden Rice article so it stays current! Thanks very much. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Handling COI accusations

This struck a chord. I could have written the very same words. I'm impressed that you started a COIN just to clear your name! Want to do more? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the title of this section is kind of distasteful to me; I am not into a pity party of any kind. I have had periods of frustration for sure. I think that is not an unusual experience on Wikipedia, especially if you work on contentious articles. But I choose to work on those; there are oceans of placid articles that I could choose instead. More to the point: I have nothing actionable going on in articles I am working on and I am very slow to move to the drama boards. So while I appreciate your consideration and have a sense of the struggles you are having, I decline. Good luck to you. Jytdog (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC) (striking now that title has changed Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC))

Understood. The title was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a public space; jokes look different in different people's eyes....and I am not sure that what you were proposing is a laughing matter. Hard work, unpleasant, and ultimately unhappy, that things come to that. But really I wish you the best. Jytdog (talk) 05:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC) (striking now that title has changed Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC))

I just read that ANI.... Holy crap. I can see why you never want to have anything to do with that again. (And I understand your comment about the title. In hindsight it was a mistake and wasn't even funny. I'm was really just struck by how similar your situation was to how mine is now, and, looking through edit histories, there have been others as well.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The one I got involved in, I did badly. I had never done it before and made so many mistakes. Probably the worst mistake was that I interrupted the one that Wolfie had started, and derailed it. Using the drama boards well is a high level skill; it takes a lot of time, and careful judgement and self-discipline to set up and execute successfully. Very easy to be tldr; very easy to lose focus, very easy to come off looking bad yourself and have it fail because of that, or even have it boomerang on you (which happens a lot, if you read the archives). But I don't see that avenue as closed to me at all. If I use it again, it will be different. One thing that gives more credibility is that you have carefully used Wikipedia's processes to work out disputes, and have come to understand their spirit. (I still don't have a solid grasp of all the processes and how they fit together; I haven't invested time in that) But nothing here is ever about "getting" the other guy. Wikipedia is built on a surprisingly deep foundation of working toward reconciliation and consensus, and trying to educate editors who are on the wrong path. I am still learning about how dispute resolution works here. I just learned about this for example. For long term things, my ~sense~ is that 1) if you use established procedures well, and 2) it is clear in what you write and what you do, that you are really trying to work things out, and 3) your own nose is relatively clean (self awareness is so important!) and 4) the other user is still recalcitrant at the end of all that, then a block or ban will be pretty inevitable. This is however not a happy outcome (an editor is lost), and it is a lot of work. For hot, active disputes there are quicker routes to take, like ANI, that can lead to shorter term blocks (which are meant to be educational, not punitive), but by coming here and talking to me it appears that you are thinking about the longer term issues. Jytdog (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Really I just want the disruption to stop now, and I have no desire to see someone banned. But the disruption has been going on since December, and at this point it seems the only way to stop it is to let the community weigh in on the long-term pattern, at AN, ANI, RFCU, or perhaps somewhere else. Geogene is currently having the same problems with this editor at BP and it strikes me that doing something jointly cuts against the counterargument that this is a just a localized content dispute, or that the problem is me, not her. There may be something I haven't thought of - what are the "quicker routes" you're referencing? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I just meant ANI for near term disruption. If there are ongoing issues that is the place to have them addressed. Thank for your changing the title of this section, btw. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

SBM

Science-based medicine has a full editorial board: [2] with 5 MDs. Second Quantization (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

hmm. quacks like a blog. i know you like what they say (I do too), but this is not what a reliable source looks like. Jytdog (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think whether you count it as a blog or not matters, what matters is it's reliability. With a good editor team and a good reputation, it seems pretty reliable to me. I don'it know of any issues with it. Second Quantization (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I will not re-delete the source, but if somebody else challenges this I will support them. I would do the same, if there were a science-savvy team of acupuncturists (like the guys who wrote the "pro" article for Anesthesia & Analgesia) who maintained a similar website, and editors who are not acu-skeptics wanted to use that site as a source....Seems to me that the relevant policy/guideline is WP:SPS Jytdog (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious now. How do you distinguish an SPS website from a non SPS? Second Quantization (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

thanks for asking! Generally if it is not the website of a traditional mainstream publication or of a major medical & scientific body, I don't use it; I do use websites run by lesser authorities when they are clearly neutral and well grounded (e.g. articles posted by cooperative extensions, for agricultural info). Outside of that I generally steer clear of anything bloggy. When I work on contentious articles I try really hard to use only the best sources i can find - ones that people who view issues differently than i do, cannot impeach. Those are the sources that i trust to teach me the nuances, and using them saves time and energy fighting over sources. Using them also ensures that i don't fall into an echo chamber. :) Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a small side track now :) "traditional mainstream publication" is vague. If you mean newspapers then they are notoriously unreliable. Using those sources opens a pandoras box where they can cite similarly garbage sources for their viewpoint. With regards to using unimpeachable sources generally, I do the same thing for content I add although I generally only use academic sources (see Astrology and science for an example I wrote most of; I only use academic sources for 99% of the content, even the Debunked! book is from a university press). It is more out of practical necessity than actual desire. If a skeptic source or some organisation says the same thing as an academic source, people are less likely to complain about the academic source even though it provides the same information. The pseudoscience practitioner can then nitpick but not completely dismiss the sentences. Back to the main point though, your criteria for distinguishing SPS seems a bit arbitrary and ill-defined. While I don't generally add non-top tier sources myself, I recognise practical reality that not everything can be sourced to such, and lower my criteria to WP:PARITY until such a time as wikipedia sourcing policy is tightened. Second Quantization (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

sorry that was sloppy of me on the mainstream media thing. for medical stuff only journal articles yes. and when i say press i mean NYT, WSJ, maybe LA times and not for anything medical. Not much outside of that. You are exactly right that my criteria for SPS is not well defined at all. Pretty much anything not published by a journal or major medical & scientific body, I put in that bucket. How do you define SPS? Am very interested to hear! 23:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Lacking a full editorial board, generally. Second Quantization (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. OK. I don't know if you saw this (and your thoughts there would be very welcome btw!) but I have been trying to get a better sense of how to qualify a source as MEDRS compliant and even more so, solid bases for actively excluding a source. Given what Yobol wrote there about having a range of expertise on the editorial board, do you think SBM fits that? Seems to me that SBM self-describes in the link you provided above, as proponents of a single view, and the discourse in the articles there (e.g. here is pretty informal, insidery, singing-to-the-choir (e.g the reference to spit takes)... it seems there are grounds for excluding it as not being "independent." If the goal of sourcing is to provide comfort to an uninformed reader that what the content says is true and expresses the consensus, I don't know that a source like SBM helps with that; it seems likely to have the opposite effect of leading the reader to think that the content is biased. We have very very solid sources on the relative safety of GM food, and even with that we get continuous charges of bias. Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you are confused about policy here. WP:FRIND is about being independent from fringe proponents. Your use of the word independent in reference to the mainstream context is not meaningful. What are they meant to be independent from?

I have read that link previously, and Yobol summarised what I would also think. SBM isn't a journal, it's a website for secondary information about medical articles related to dubious practices, intended for a public audience. A journal is intended for experts. What applies for journals is different, namely because journals are used for different things. What is described as fact in SBM is reliable for fact, what is marked as opinion is opinion. SBM is useful for providing the mainstream position on a fringe medical topic, but shouldn't be used where a journal review is required. Appropriate usage of sources is required, in the same way that we wouldn't use an encyclopedia for information for which a secondary source is required.

If by "singing-to-the-choir" you mean tone then that is also not an issue. For example, Quackwatch is frequently criticised as being factually accurate, but having a harsh tone. So it's reliable for fact, but the tone is not something we need to include on-wiki (see WP:IMPARTIAL about tone). For an example of inappropriate tone (not involving QW), see the difference between pre and post edit of: [3] (it's marked as a minor edit because it's actually 3 edits combined). The previous version has an inappropriate tone but is factually accurate. The second version conveys the same information (well a little extra), but in a less hostile tone. While the sources may have a harsh tone. We don't need to include that. We don't need to quote a factually correct article which lacks the tone of wikipedia when writing factual statements; we can simply paraphrase it and provide the same information. If it's purely opinion, obviously this need not be paraphrased and should be attributed. Second Quantization (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time for explaining all that. I have not worked in FRINGE turf much and I appreciate learning how you operate there. Sorry being too certain in my statements, when I am still learning. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Bovine Somatotropin

Thanks for the copyedit, but in the future, no need to get snippy. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

lots of people fail to read. in the future, no need to take things personally! Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It's just not a nice way to speak to other people. There are better ways to point out if someone has erred (especially for such a minor a error). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

all i wrote was "for others who fail to read", in the edit note, when i supplied a citation in the lead paragraph of the section and deleted your tag. i can't believe you are so thin-skinned and have survived here for 2 years, that you not only left me a note here but came back and pushed the point! you seem to do great work and i am glad you around, but for pete's sake. for what it is worth, i am sorry i hurt your feelings; that was by no means my intention. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of mediation

Instead I am starting with mediation, I have named you as a party in this case. Here is the link to the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Daniel_Amen You might also want to check your Wikipedia related email.

Thanks,

Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk • contribs)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Daniel Amen". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 March 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hand wavy

There is nothing hand wavy in what I said: "Nothing says it only applies to articles about fringe subjects, it talks about when fringe content appears." If you disagree show wording that says otherwise, or even ask at WP:FTN. It should be readily apparent on reading WP:FRINGE that it is not just about fringe articles but principally about undue promotion of fringe theories where ever that may be. Second Quantization (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. That, I actually agree with! As I wrote in my description of how I wish the article to be structured.. description of the protocol and the results and the consequences are not descriptions of acupuncture itself - it wouldn't matter if what was being tested was a small molecule drug, a medical device, a standard surgical procedure (nerve sparing prostatectomy) or acupuncture. It should very much be framed with the mainline scientific view about acupuncture, for sure! There should be a section on the intervention that should definitely state the mainstream view - that acu is FRINGE. That is "when fringe content appears." I am having a hard time seeing how the protocol, outcome, and consequences themselves are fringe and you are not providing any grounding in the policy for naming them as such.... Jytdog (talk)

Maybe we are coming at cross purposes here. It is not the outcome I am describing as fringe or protocol I am describing as fringe, but the acupuncturist interpretations about it would be opinions from the fringes. The article is the subtopic of a fringe theory. Second Quantization (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

i'm completely confused now. :) It sounds like we do agree. I would just like us to get on the same page, as to how to shape the article so that we it can get settled already - these trials happened almost 10 years ago and it is goofy that there are such battles still raging! I think I am going to try to create a re-draft of the article in a sandbox and then show everybody what I think it should actually look like.... Jytdog (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Shiatsu

I penned a well referenced article citing reports made by recognised university's in the uk. I also cited an independent report commissioned by the NHS and a revision of a report already cited. A wholesale reversion I feel is entirely unsatisfactory and misleading in a place where a balanced view is needed surely the opinions cited represent people who have experienced the treatment and not editors with an axe to grind against alternative medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohanww (talk • contribs) 17:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that these are very very hard topics. But we do need to follow WP:MEDRS for health related claims, and we cannot use self published sources for anything really. I agree that Shiatsu article needs improvement! Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

MY SOURCES ARE NOT SELF PUBLISHED THEY ARE WELL RESEARCHED PAPERS BY ESTABLISHED UNIVERSITIES. I AM IN NO WAY AFFILIATED TO THE SHIATSU SOCIETY AND HAVE NO VESTED INTERESTS IN SHIATSU. I DO KNOW PERSONALLY A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BENEFITED FROM SHIATSU INCLUDING MY DISABLED DAUGHTER WHO HAS CEREBRAL PALSY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohanww (talk • contribs) 22:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Please don't yell at me. I am glad that your daughter was helped - whether it was Shiatsu per se, or if any careful massage would have done, I cannot know. But i am glad she was helped. From what you write, it appears that you don't understand what reliable sources are for health related content - please do read WP:MEDRS. MEDRS is fully based on the general sourcing policy here at Wikipedia, which you can read here WP:RS. A section within RS, describes what a "self-published source" is - you can get to that section directly here: WP:SPS. The "self" part of that doesn't refer to the editor who uses it, but rather the folks who write and publish it. Also, you are clearly passionate about Shiatsu. That is great, but please do not use Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy - please see WP:ADVOCACY, All content on Wikipedia has to follow our policies and guidelines. Everybody is welcome to edit here, but everybody has to follow the policies and guidelines here too. Every world has its rules. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Touching Base

Hi, I just wanted to thank you again for the tips the other day. I was pretty tied up for the last two days, but I'll be able to post now over on the Dan Amen talk page.

I just saw the "Biography of Living Persons" notice over there and wanted to say that I don't know that person and have never communicated with them before.

One positive development that I see, from my point of view, is that the word "condemned" has been removed from the article opening. I thought that was overstepping. I think the word "criticism" is a good substitute because he is receiving a lot of that.

Anyway I'll start trying to negotiate differences with those guys over there as per your suggestion. Thanks again!

Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Thank you for being open to talking! Jytdog (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for editing your comment on Talk:Daniel Amen

Sorry for indenting your comment on Talk:Daniel Amen. You were right to revert me. I was under the impression indents were used more to distinguish who was speaking. In general I feel it is not a good idea to touch anyone else' comments, I shouldn't have done so in that case. Thanks for the explanation in your edit summary. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

i hear you on the sacredness of other editors' comments! thanks for reaching out - no offense taken and i am glad you feel the same. :) Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for not biting the newbies...

I'm the professor for the students (User:Jfriend2 & User:Estephe9) working on the Human cloning article that you commented on here. I initially hesitated to accept their choice of articles because I've avoided controversial topics in my previous WP assignments, but our ambassador (User:Biosthmors) encouraged us to be bold, we all agreed that this article would be improved by adding some science, and I have some great students in my class (unlike some of the classroom problems I've heard about). We discussed your comments and I suggested that, after they have beefed up the science in the article, it would be appropriate to poll the WP community with a suggestion to fork the "Laws" section into a new article and just leave a summary paragraph. We'll certainly need some help with this since I'm not sure of the proper etiquette and guidelines for forking articles, especially since there are 5 different WikiProjects listed on the talk page that may have different guidelines. The first assignment to add content to the article itself is due next Tues, with a peer-review from their classmates due the following week. Any feedback, suggestions, or corrections you might have would be welcome and appreciated. Biolprof (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out! it was SO REFRESHING to deal with those two... so, so many students have zero desire to engage with the community and you must have done something very right to sensitize them to the context in which they are operating. I am watching the page and whenever it becomes clear that the time to consider splitting out the legal stuff is ripe, all they have to do is mention that on the Talk page. We can talk through whether we should just do it, or have an RfC (which i don't reckon will be necessary). Doing the split is easy and there is no rush. Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

My withdrawn comment

HI, I withdrew my comment on overmedication because I was worried that it would be misunderstood. Thanks, Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

On your COI postings

I saw the COI disclosure conversation here and am 100% confident that there is no conflict of interest on the part of Jytdog. In fact I never did feel that way. Working at a University is not, by any stretch, a conflict of interest with anything specific that goes on in private industry.Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

A question regarding BLP

Hi. I note your recent change on the Mercola page, and it prompted a question I wondered if you might help me with. (Unsourced content)

It was mostly accurate, but the only thing I could find about the closure of the mercola wellness centre was in the Google cache. It appears that the wiki is now inaccurate in that it has closed, but we can't say so because we don't have a RS? Am I understanding correctly? Thanks. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. Now that I've read the edit properly, the question is rather inappropriate. My bad. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Process to upload copyrighted Photo

I would like to insert a main picture for the Human Cloning article. I found this picture on google and have contacted the person who holds the copyright, he is willing to let me use it. I was wondering if you have any advice on this process or have gone about using a copyrighted photo for a wiki article??Jfriend2 (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

here you go Help:Introduction_to_uploading_images/1 Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Daniel Amen, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Letting you know

FYI. I mentioned your talk page in my complaint on the administrator noticeboard [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyc12 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 23 March 2014‎

thanks for your consideration.Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well done

We have had our differences...as have you and many of my closest wiki-friends. But, I would like to commend you on the manner in which you handled User:Cliffswallow-vaulting. So often these "New editor misunderstandings" can turn out bad. The New Editor leaves in a huff, never to return. Your nurturing and understanding kept the editor involved and eventually able to see the path out of the forest. Well done! ```Buster Seven Talk 18:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that is very kind of you! I know that you have a lot of experience welcoming new users and a compliment from you on that front means a lot. So thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		To Jytdog for his admirable and diligent work combating bullshit by bringing balance and sound sources to controversial and difficult articles related to food production – Epipelagic (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!! That is very kind of you. Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Beginning again?

Hi Jytdog, I just wanted to notify you it looks like the Syngenta "scientist allegations" issue may not be settled after all. Binksternet added another couple sentences expanding on Hayes' allegations, so I added a couple sentences expanding on Syngenta's response. It may be worth watching. Honestly, I don't think either of the additions are warranted, but if one is going to be there, the other needs to be as well. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's devolving into an edit war. I'm trying to find common ground, but I honestly believe Binksternet is showing bias on this. Adding a second paragraph so that Hayes' problem with atrazine, and allegations against Syngenta, are detailed twice, while repeatedly undoing any reference to Syngenta's response due to it being "a biased primary source", seems very biased to me. Either both need to be stated, or neither. I have tried accommodating him; most recently I went to a third party source to make the same counterpoint. If it doesn't stand, we may have to go to arbitration. Jtrevor99 (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it has devolved into an edit war report. I had hoped we could reconcile our differences without taking that approach or going to arbitration, but it seems unlikely now. I apologize in advance for any inappropriate action (in your opinion) that I have taken, and I also apologize if I manage to drag you into this mess. If you do believe I behaved inappropriately at any time, please tell me so I can learn from my mistakes. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

looks like that flurry settled itself. i have the articles on my watchlist and am thinking about them. there are a lot of steps between a content dispute and arbitration. please remember that wikipedia is going to be here a long time, and nothing is urgent. the main thing is to try to reach consensus, always. hang in there. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it's settled (for now). The admins weighed in and declared we were both guilty of 3RR; they locked the page for a week. I've posted a request on the Edit War and Incidents pages for clarification on what the admins would have done, as I believe there was a conflict between WP:BALANCE, WP:BALASPS and possibly WP:WEIGHT in this case. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Lipoic acid". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 00:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

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)