User talk:Gandydancer/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

BP Information

Hi Gandydancer, in case you do not have my Talk page on your watchlist, I wanted to let you know that I have replied to your request for information regarding the propane gas market manipulation cases. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've left a short note in reply to your question last month about the motivations of paid editors, in this thread. No reply is necessary, I simply felt I could help answer your question, at least related to my own participation. Thanks, Arturo at BP (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Be well and be safe Gandy!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks MadSci. It will be our best year yet! Gandydancer (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Cataract

Thanks for proof reading the changes to cataract, be great if you could keep an eye on it (excuse the pun) as there's lots more to do. I'll try to finish causes over the next few weeks and then get started on treatments.Aspheric (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. And as yet no improvements to "your" article? Please see "mine", and I'm not at all ashamed to say that I think it is just marvelous! Gandydancer (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Re Warren

I'm not catching your meaning when you say "Please take another look at my edit--this was used to compare articles. I was very much aware that this info was deleted from Brown's article during the Brown/Warren campaign and I did not make any edits to his page to restore this info.". Rather than clutter up the Warren talk page, I thought I would ask here. What edit do you mean?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, I read you live in Maine. I lived there until college, in York County. Love the state.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm sorry--I was aware that I had made an edit that was poorly done on the talk page. I had meant to go there and try to fix it and then come back and make a note for you as well. As it turned out, I completely forgot. What I meant to explain is that I was aware that an editor had removed any trace of information re Brown's accidental use of Dole bio info (see here: [1]) from his article and I didn't argue to have it returned. That info and the "War Whoops" incident could have been placed in the Brown/Warren senate race article. Thanks for the note and let me know if I have answered your question. Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, now I have a better understanding of your comment.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

--Guerillero | My Talk 20:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BP, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page OSHA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elizabeth_Warren/GA2#GA_Reassessment - Youreallycan 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Many thanks for the excellent edits to medicine related content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hypochromic anemia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pica (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Chevron paid editor

Hi Gandydancer. I came across your comment on Lexein's Talk page and commented there. I frequently participate here in a PR capacity and my suggestion is that, when it comes to controversies, it's best that PR editors point out a problem, provide sources and information, and a first draft, but the article-space content should be written independently by an impartial editor. This would - I suspect - take less of your time than trying to drag the PR editor reluctantly over contentious materials. At a glance, it looks like a big WP:UNDUE and WP:CRITICISM problem and a 2-3 paragraph summary in the company's history would be adequate. In my role here in a PR capacity, this is how I would prefer editors collaborate with me, positioning PRs as a resource, not an editor replacement.

There are certain areas, such as operations or product summaries that are different, where a PR editor may be the best one to write the article-space copy. CorporateM (Talk) 14:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Hi, Gandydancer. I split off the volume and extent section into Volume and extent of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Could you please take a look if it all necessary information is added? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at this article

I reviewed your vast experience and wanted to contact you about helping to resolve a dispute. I'm being teamed up against by a group of self-avowed libertarians. I don't care that they are libertarians (or if you are) except for the fact they are using their ideology to skew the Koch Industries article. When I post positive things about Koch, they don't blink an eye, but if I dare put up anything critical, it gets deleted and frowned upon without balance. I'm trying to round up some disinterested third party input so I'm not getting steamrolled by biased editors. My goal is to make the article more informative and encyclopedic and that's it. Here's the current critical part of the Talk Page. Thank you. Cowicide (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, But I'd rather have all of my fingernails pulled out than to get involved with those editors. Especially Collect, perhaps the most dangerous and dirtiest Wikipedia editor I've come across--only my opinion of course, which I feel I am free to offer on my own talk page? It is true that there are plenty of articles here that are more about numbers than about the truth, IOW, who ever has the most editors on their side can write the article. Good luck, but you may have to walk away from that one. Gandydancer (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the warnings about Collect. Yeah, they are trying their best to get on my every last nerve (including stalking me, etc.) but since I have zero respect for the damage they do to Wikipedia, etc. it doesn’t really bother me. I don't concern myself with the opinions of people I don't respect. I've had people contact me through other channels that I'll continue to work with (you're not the only one who fears these corrupt editors). I'm just happy the page has growing eyes on it now, at least. If you do want to participate later, all I ask is that things are truthful and sourced properly for an overall NPOV that the article deserves. Thanks again! Cowicide (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for an IP#?

It would be easier to accept if you could put it on a deleted user page. 75.152.113.13 (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC) I also did this.75.152.113.13 (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2012 Delhi gang rape case. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Abhishek  ^Talk 13:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

And you are expected to know better than reject eight changes by multiple editors with one edit on your part and without comment. You need to use WP the same way the rest of us do rather than reject edits in such an unreasonable manner. Gandydancer (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

5 pillars >> MEDRS

To answer your question....

One of the 5 pillars is WP:NPOV. One of the "core content policies" within WP:NPOV, is WP:OR. One of the key elements of WP:OR and within it, is WP:PSTS. This policy says: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

That is a paragraph that I wish people would read 100 times before they start editing - so much of the spirit of wikipedia is in there. Do you see how use of 2ndary and 3iary sources is the go-to option, and primary is to avoided, so as to avoid OR and WP:UNDUE? It is a great thing.

WP:PSTS goes on to say, with respect to primary sources (the bold is from the original - I did not add it): "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy. "

Again - the policy could not be more clear about what it means when it says "should be avoided" and "use them carefully" - the limits are very strict.

Finally, we get to WP:MEDRS which falls 100% within everything said above -- and makes the sourcing policy even stricter when discussing health, which it defines broadly. (although I would be surprised if you argued that the sections I have been editing are not about health!) I have already written too much but WP:MEDRS makes it clear that the policy to base content on 2ndary and 3iary sources is even stronger, and the admonition that "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided" is even stronger.

When I look at passages like those in bisphenol A article that I have been deleting, it kills me. They are a meaningless laundry list of one-off studies. And the list could go on and on and on. Why is one there, and not another? The selection of which ones is there, is OR in itself. But should they all be there? Absolutely not, that is crazy. This is why WP:PSTS emphasizes so strongly that you base articles on secondary sources. Some of the authors of WP:MEDRS take this so far as to say, if it is about health, and it is not discussed in a secondary source, it does not belong in Wikipedia That is a ~bit~ extreme but I totally get where they are coming from.

What is worse, in the Bisphenol A article, is that a bunch of the primary sources cited are older than the reviews cited. That is completely messed up with respect to WP:PSTS.

Hope that answers your question! Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The studies are primary and the peer-reviewed journals are secondary sources. I have been working on medical articles for years. Gandydancer (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I have been working on the pregnancy, breastfeeding, etc. articles lately as well so they come to mind. Please check the numerous similar studies at those articles. It can take many years for Cochrane, for instance, to do a review and some studies never do come up for a review. I also work on pesticide articles and most of those articles will just disappear if all the studies are to be removed. Letter of the law strict guidelines are appropriate when a controversial study is attempting to overturn an accepted body of thought, but that is not at all the came at the BPA article. Gandydancer (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but your interpretation of what a "primary source" is, contradicts policy - WP:OR says "a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment" and the MEDRS guideline confirms this (as it must) saying (I added the italicization):
"A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, filled the test tubes, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made.
A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations.
A tertiary source usually summarizes a range of secondary sources. Undergraduate textbooks, lay scientific books, and encyclopedias are examples of tertiary sources."

I am sorry you have been working with an incorrect definition... awkward. I have been holding back on continuing the work on the bisphenol A article until we resolve this. I do hope you reply soon so I can continue.

and i do not agree with your characterization that the pesticide article would disappear if we actually followed wikipedia policy -- there are plenty of 2ndary sources that describe toxicity of pesticides. The laundry lists of primary sources in those articles do not belong in Wikipedia -- it is actually those articles that I had in mind when I wrote, "When I look at passages like those in bisphenol A article that I have been deleting, it kills me." - that content violates WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS.Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

btw, I see you started a conversation on Talk at bisphenol A. We can continue this there, leaving this here. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at the Pregnancy article which has 384 watchers. Look at the toxins sections and note that it has 7 (at a quick glance) primary studies, not reviews. What do you make of that? Is everyone else asleep at the wheel? Also I note that you deleted sources "willy nilly"--some primary studies you kept and not others. If you had deleted all of them the article would have only government information (based on research done by chemical companies) and nothing done by private universities. My time is very limited right now... Gandydancer (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I better make another quick note as I am aware that it sounds like I don't know what I'm talking about. I am hopeful that you will remember that these studies and similar ones on hundreds of other Wikipedia pages have have been here for years and the 'pedia won't come crashing down if you don't remove them immediately. Please understand that other editors may sometimes need a few days to get to issues even when they see them as quite important, as I do here. Gandydancer (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It is hard to move forward without agreeing on basic definitions. I agree that little in wikipedia is urgent and am willing to wait a reasonable amount of time for you to respond on the bisphenol A page. To answer your questions, there are indeed articles with serious flaws that lots of people have worked on. We both find them all the time. Thanks for mentioning the details on pregnancy article -- there is not way that the article on pregnancy (a super emotionally laden health topic) should have 7(!) primary sources cited! I am going to go delete them (which I expect you will revert). With respect to my editing on bisphenol A, there was a lot to do and I went after the worst - the content that was the most clearly health related that was improperly sourced. I have a lot more work I want to do on that article but paused when you objected. We should end this here and pick it up on the relevant pages. Thanks for talking.Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Mass deletion of research

Hi Gandydancer. I too share your frustration when there is a mass deletion of research that clearly meets WP:MEDRS standards. I've seen at Chiropractic, Spinal manipulation, Alternative medicine and others without any discussion of the material. Given this plight, I understand all too well what was happening at Bisphenol A. I restored the last stable version and hope you're able to talk it through. If not go through the required channels WP:DR/N (tedious but necessary, I suppose) you have a solid case, IMO. Regards, DVMt (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Yes, my entire editing time was spent working on this today. And the thing is, while I believe that the other editor truly believed that s/he was only editing properly, I do wonder how an editor could be so arrogant as to believe that all the other editors that watch that page for years and have worked on it and years could be so stupid. Plus, either s/he did not research who and when the article was being worked on first or if he did, he chose to ignore that I had just said that I was presently working on it. I'm certainly grateful that WAID came by and left some comments. Well, thanks so much for dropping by as I was feeling pretty depressed about the whole thing--partly because my personal life has been a little difficult of late and it seemed like one more thing... About chiropractic, I saw that for awhile they said that it was based on "supernatural powers"--something like that...haha. I've only seen one one time--when I was in med school my back went out and one of my instructors told me to see a chiropractor--I did and it worked. Gandydancer (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I saw your plight at WAIDs user page and it was all too familiar! Regarding chiropractic care, the evidence for the most part, seems to suggest equal effectiveness for manual and manipulative therapy for common spinal complaints and extremity complaints. If you have time at some point, I'm proposing a revision at the chiropractic talk page to modernize the article. We're breaking it down section by section with sections for commentary. Most editors there currently make good suggestions, while there are some trolls who seem to prevent any "newer" material from being inserted (i.e. favour the supernatural description as opposed to the science out there describing biological mechanisms. Anyways, looks like alt-med might be staying alt-med unfortunately. With Fiachra editing there though I can expect the bias to drop severely as new and better sources are introduced. Anyways, I'm glad you appreciated my "work" and glad to see the other editor using the talk page prior to unilaterally deleting tons of material. DVMt (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

copy of note left on whatamidoing's page

I am a talk page stalker and saw your discussion with whatamidoing and added this there. adding it here... I think we are maybe all coming from the same place, and maybe just the way I did what I did, was offensive? Do we agree that the best sources would be reviews by toxicologists? I am happy to go find them. I just really want to kill the laundry list approach where the content is clearly driven by primary sources, and present real, consensus, health information. If you would be OK if I replace the current content, driven by primary sources, with content driven by tox reviews, we are all good. I will create it and propose it on the talk page!Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the article talk page is the best place to present this discussion, not my talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

KJytdog (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The moment you've been waiting for...

Research status of manual and manipulative therapy! Any comments, suggestions or language, grammatical or otherwise, I'd really appreciate if you could give a glance here [2]. Thank you! DVMt (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duluth, Minnesota, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sault Ste. Marie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		To thank you for your hard work in keeping Wikipedia on the straight and narrow. All the best, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Well deserved! Sometimes one gets the feeling that there are too many holes in the dike, but it continues to be a noble pursuit to try and plug them. Binksternet (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, I am so happy to see that you may soon be an admin! It was just shear luck that I was aware of it at all since I don't watch for those things--I had checked an editor's page that was new to me and he just happened to have a note to himself about your request. I've been meaning to leave a note on your talk page about how patient and nice you were to me when I first met you. The first time I as much as said "...and get the hell off my talk page too.."--I was licking my wounds after that effing suggestion by half of arbcom to kick me off of women's articles. I was so naive back then that I had no idea what an arbcom was and I didn't know that it was common for editors to add notes to other people's talk page. Anyway, then I forgot you and met you a second time when I helped with the Elizabeth Warren article and didn't understand exactly how to fix stuff and thought you were bossing me around. Haha, I did't take to that very well! But you were so nice and wrote an extremely long explanation. I wanted to put all of that on the voting page and add that what is so special about you is that you have a good healthy mature ego. That's something that a lot of editors here lack and I have wondered if the same thing that draws people here as anons also tends to draw people with weak ego strength. Then of course they need to strut around like roosters and such...hold a grudge and get even... BTW, have you heard from Petrarchan? I worry that he just seemed to disappear. Gandydancer (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Another barnstar and a request

		The Original Barnstar
		Many thanks for this and other excellent edits. DancingPhilosopher (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to ask you to read the article on this lady who became yesterday the first woman Prime minister in the history of Slovenia. Many thanks. DancingPhilosopher (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Please see my talk page note as well. I read your user page and made a heart-felt connection. If you read my page you will see that my family heritage is very important to me as well. My grandmother and grandfather immigrated here from Slovenia and moved to northern Minnesota where grandpa worked in the iron mines and later opened a butcher shop. I will read the article you have suggested. Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Dancing, please see the Elizabeth Warren article for help with setting up the new prime minister's article. I have helped review it and write it and it has a GA status and as such may prove to be a good example to follow. Gandydancer (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

I hope you are not allergic to strawberries; if you are, please, choose something else instead. Or, on a second thought :-), you can offer it to our ancestors who seem to have had both worked in the mines, your grandpa and my great grandpa; you know, I sometimes wonder, if my great granddad had had not been killed in that mine, how different my life would be, if I'd be born at all :-) Anyway, I'm so glad to meet you here <3 DancingPhilosopher (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Dancing, our problem here is that we had to give up our heritage to become "Americans" which mostly, back then (though it is still, unfortunately, true today), meant to become more like the English who, for the most part, I have very little good to say about! Look for instance at the name changes: My grandmother's beautiful, flowing Teh-rres-se-ah became Ter-ese (Therese), which is not nearly as pretty. I've looked at lists of Slovenian women's names and they almost all have at least three syllables compared to the usual two for English names. I've done some research into the old Easter traditions and several years ago at Easter I gathered "switches" to switch the elders with (a healthy psychological practice indeed!), made tiny yew wreaths, explained "watering" of the girls to my grandchildren, explained the May Pole...and I don't remember what else - of course time marches on and perhaps even you are not familiar with some of your own traditions? One tradition that has not been lost is the making of potica for Christmas and Easter. My daughters both make it and their dough is indeed paper thin, not think as in the photo at our article. Some years ago I did some work on the Slovenian foods articles but my knowledge is actually very limited. Perhaps I could get back to the Slovenian foods articles/traditions and you could help me? For now, Gandydancer (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Back to the trenches!

Here we go again with another article to discuss COI editing. I hope you have a good helmet and some decent camouflage. It can be a tough call, but I think you have a good head on your shoulders. We don't always line up eye to eye, but I so respect you. This one is gonna be heck I think.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification

An editor has brought you up, and quoted you for an argument against Arturo of BP at Jimbo Wales talk page here.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Transocean

I have gathered a number of sources about the Horzon Deepwater spill, and have only scratched the surface. I do however have one for the Transocean fine:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57561867/transocean-admits-criminal-conduct-before-oil-spill/

It is CBS news which is probably not a bad source for the headline information, a serious newspaper would be better.

Rich Farmbrough, 14:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC).

Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You

Rock petrarchan47tc 06:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks very much for your suggestion on Arturo's talk page. Can you direct me to Wikipedia pages dealing with this issue? I've found a couple but they seem to be all over the lot, and I've noticed that a lot of the discussion seems to be on user talk pages. Coretheapple (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. What do you think of this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coretheapple/sandbox Coretheapple (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Coretheapple. I would not be the one to ask for info on paid editing. Since the big blowup on the BP page I've put a few sites on my watch list, but perhaps Slim Virgin would be a good one to ask about such things [3] As you know from reading the BP talk page, on March 17 Silverseven was apparently about to put Arturo's most recent draft into the article when Slim showed up on the page and asked him to please not do that. At that time I wrote a note on Slim's page because I was so relieved that finally someone had taken note of what had been going on at the BP article (and others). You might want to read the follow-up to my note because it gives the perspective of a person named Jake Ocaasi who apparently assists paid editors. Also, have you read the entire Prudhoe Bay episode on the talk page (both sections)? I can't think of a better example of how and why our present form of paid editing is not working. I note that editor Guy has named me (for one) as the problem on Jimbo's talk page: "The problem here is not that a BP employee openly proposed changes, it's that a Wikipedia editor did not apply sufficient critical judgment when responding to those suggestions". It doesn't surprise me but it does make me angry. Over the years I have complained numerous times but now with the big BP blowup, it's either the paid editor's fault who has actually followed all the rules, or an editor's fault, which in the case of Prudhoe Bay is me. This is similar to Risker's comment that my comments were just sour grapes since over a hundred editors watch the article (Risker is an ArbCom member - sorta the WP Supreme Court.) Too many people just lose touch with what it's like to edit a difficult article and too ready with criticism.

As to the tags that you suggest, I'm not really ready to take that route. Core, I have always hated those warnings. I sometimes see them at articles where some jerk just slaps a tag on with no explanation or talk page discussion opened. I believe that they are sometimes used to bias the readers to think that an article is not accurate. And it does work that way: A couple of times when reading a blog I noted that the author was speaking of a WP article and said that the information was probably not correct because "an administer had to step in and say the article...!" I was ever so happy when I came across a WP guideline that said that they can be removed if there has been no action in a reasonable amount of time. If I see no problems, now I just remove them.

My idea for articles such as BP is to have WP invite a rep from a green group such as The Sierra Club, etc., to make suggestions and to perhaps disagree, etc., with BP's suggestions. They would work like paid editors able to give suggestions, but not directly edit. That way the actual editors would see more than one way to look at the information presented in the article. Thus people like Rangoon, Beagle, Martin, and so on would not have the advantage of a paid expert writing up their version while editors like Bink, Ptrar and I are left without a resource person. Of course, no one would ever agree to that. Gandydancer (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, you might want to read the most recent talk page edits at the Chevron Corporation article where a paid editor attempted to (IMO) seriously bias an article while an environmental legal process is ongoing. I spent several hours researching and I actually felt quite angry over that one. That is a case where a green group would be really handy for a different point of view than that of the corporation. Gandydancer (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, quite a bit of history here. I will definitely take a look at the pages you mention. I can see how this invasion of paid corporate people can be overwhelming for those of us here as volunteers, unpaid, taking time off from the things that do earn us a living to deal with people who make their living by influencing Wikipedia. That is an uneven playing field that is just wrong, as far as I'm concerned. I'm aghast at the complacency and naivete of some editors on this subject. I guess the question is, if even the founder of Wikipedia doesn't give a hoot, why should anyone else care? Thanks again. Coretheapple (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I actually like Jimbo and it's been my impression that he is very concerned about paid editors. I've read his comments and it's my best guess that he's actually corresponded (or maybe even met) Arturo, and really liked him. Arturo is likeable--you know the type. BP knew quite well that he'd be a good one--I'd bet that everybody at work likes good ol' Art. I do too--mostly because he has not been sickeningly nice. One time he said he was only interested in an accurate article and I asked him to just stop it, and he did--at least that's how I remember it.

I think that Arturo would be remiss, as a BP representative, not to meet and correspond with Jimbo and as many other Wikipedia people as he can. That is what he is paid to do. That's what I mean by the playing field not being level. Other editors, volunteers, are not in that same position to exert influence. They do not have the same clout. By identifying themselves and playing nice, corporate representatives actually enhance their ability to influence Wikipedia. It is much better for them to operate openly than to astroturf. The BP controversy is proving that. Coretheapple (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for your long-standing support of Wikipedia and its readers. I hope I can be a positive participant in future discussions. Please let me know about pertinent discussions since, it seems they happen in many locations. I have collected some pertinent "stuff" at Wikipedia:Paid operatives. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look at that. By the way, I am just here six months, so my support, such as it is, is not very longstanding. Coretheapple (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Core, yes I agree with everything you said. Frankly, I may be way off here but at times I almost get the feeling that some editors like to associate themselves with Arturo rather than be associated with the lower level scum that does the actual editing at these articles. Ever get that feeling? Gandydancer (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it quite like that, but there is a definite "Bizarro world" aspect to Wikipedia on this and related subjects. Coretheapple (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that every large corporation, religious inst., govt., well, everything that gets big turns into Bizarro world. I worked for ten years at a small Minnesota hospital that was not Bizarro world and work was such a joy that I sometimes went to work early just to be around the place. When my dad was dying I kept him at home and I gave him my work number to call whether I was at work or not because I knew that they'd take care of things. But then I also worked at Vet's Hospt. in Mpls and work was even more Bizarro world than you could ever imagine. The people that somehow climb to the top positions are not always the best people for the organization. Not saying that's true here--I really have no idea. Though it would not surprise me at all... Gandydancer (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I just find that, on this issue, there is an enormous amount of naivete when it comes to how powerful corporations deploy their resources to shape public opinion. They seem to think that part-time, poorly motivated volunteers are a match for pros. They aren't. They need to put into place practices and procedures that can be invoked to prevent corporations and governments from taking over articles about themselves. I see also, from perusing various pages, that religious movements have similarly deployed personnel to Wikipedia, straining resources here and often receiving support from the clueless. It's an intimidating and discouraging picture overall. Coretheapple (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. What is really problematic is that traveling bands of editors show up at liberal articles and vote down, or at least try to, anyhing but their slanted POV. That's why I freaked out when Silverseren showed up at BP.

My very first experience with paid editing involved an EPA rep that was editing exactly like Arturo but when no one would put his stuff in the article he just did it himself. The EPA rep came to the article because of an issue that had generated hundreds of blog entries because it was pretty apparent that the EPA was lying and such. The EPA was determined to remove any and every mention of the incident. He rewrote the whole article. People that trust the FDA, EPA, and such are just as dopey as people that believe that large corporations really care about the environment. It is well-known that they know very well that it is cheaper to get a fine slapped on them from time to time than put real safety measures in place...though I'd guess that the Gulf spill was a little more than they had expected...

According to the gov't summary after the spill it is a fact that it will take a miracle to avoid another similar spill in the future unless BP and the other oil corps clean up their act. But in the meantime no stricter laws have been put in place, in fact more than likely oil lobbyists have seen to it that rules are relaxed even more. And the cozyness between BP and the Gulf gov't overseers following the spill was so obvious that it was almost funny. (I worked on that article right from the start.)

But people just go on using the stored fuels that the sun made millions of years ago rather than invest in solar, wind, etc. as though there's no tomorrow. The whole world is Bizzaro world. OK, I've had my little rant. ;-) Gandydancer (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I have had no experience with paid editors, so far as I know. I don't understand why Wikipedia allows such people, and why it embraces editors with a declared conflict of interest.

I was impressed by your December response to the Chevron editors requests, and I replicated your response on Jimbo's talk page. See also my note below. I'm struck by the small number of editors involved in such articles. Coretheapple (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Good points, all and a joy to read. The editors that support paid-to-edit are a strong and cohesive group. My hackles go up when any one of them (some more than others) imply that the majority of editors support their view. They state it as fact, as a foregone conclusion. The opposite is more likely the Truth....but if they say it often enough, other just-observing editors will begin to believe their "spin". You are both aware ofCREWE I hope. 200 plus members in mid-2012.```Buster Seven Talk 21:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the premise of their project is correct. Wikipedia is rife with inaccuracies. But there is a right and a wrong way to tackle that problem. Is there no project aimed at serving as a check on corporate influence on Wikipedia? Coretheapple (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I wanted to correct something I said earlier, I think it was to you. I said that I had never encountered a coporate official on a Wiki talk page. Not true. I had completely forgotten about Talk:Hydroxycut. An official user who using the very same tactics as at BP and Chevron pages, though was blocked because of his user name and, apparently, replaced by another user. Hydroxycut is a toxic nutritional supplement that has killed people, and thanks to his efforts the lead now makes it seem like a wonder drug. Given that similar tactics have been employed in several articles, involving talk page involvement and requests to add text, I wonder if there is some kind of rule book or central coordinating body that they are following.Coretheapple (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I took a quick look at the talk and saw that MastCell is involved--he is the best of the best. Also saw that Jytdog made an edit--he is very good at oversight and quick on the pickup. IMO. I only wish I had more time to actually study the talk since you say it is typical. Maybe some day... Gandydancer (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I've also noticed the same tactics on several articles. I've started an essay at User:SlimVirgin/Ghostwriting. If you've noticed specific tactics we ought to highlight, I'd appreciate a note about them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I will definitely look at that essay and see if there's anything I can find that will add to it. I wonder if there's any way to quantify the scope of this problem. How many corporate editors are there openly proposing drafts to articles? They seem all to be following similar procedures, almost a script, except that at Chevron the editor actually edited the article. The Hydroxycut article is a good example of why corporate people need to stay off talk pages. They can propose all kinds of changes that appear to look fine at first blush, but it takes an expert, or an editor with special interest in the subject matter, to realize that there's a problem. For instance, the Hydroxycut corporate user succeeded in adding studies that were not published in a peer-reviewed journal, and therefore were not acceptable via Wikipedia standards. Also lost in the rush was the simple and horrifying fact that the FDA still admonishes customers not to buy the product. Obviously a corporate editor isn't going to point that out.

But I don't blame them for trying to skew Wikipedia content. They're paid to do that. It's their enablers that tee me off. I'm seeing people in authority, administrators, act like it's just perfectly fine that employees of companies come here to make articles about them "fair and balanced," and praising these people to the hilt. The degree of cluelessness and naivete involved is remarkable, and would annoy me if I hadn't come to the conclusion that improving Wikipedia is a hopeless enterprise. Coretheapple (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your point about how it can require expertise to spot the skewing, there's a Forbes article here from 7 February 2012 that says: "BP has revealed that it intends to spend over $500 million to restore its brand image that took a huge beating because of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico spill in 2010. ... The marketing campaign will look to position BP as an efficient player in the oil and gas space and stay away from highlighting environmental initiatives."

And elsewhere: "In the new marketing push, BP will no longer be parlaying itself as environmentally conscious, but efficient and cost-effective for consumers of its retail locations."

If BP's drafts were to downplay the company's environmental initiatives, that might even look (to the casual observer) as though the rep was trying to be neutral. To spot the problem, you'd have to know that the new emphasis was part of BP's marketing strategy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

One would have to either devote a lot of time to studying BP, or be an expert on BP, to be able to detect this kind of spin. User:DGG recently suggested on the Jimbo page discussion of this that he's not worried about the BP article because of the large number of new editors. I don't share that position. Most editors, myself included, are not experts on this company and are at a disadvantage on dealing with a corporate professional, courteous and rule-abiding as he may be. Coretheapple (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The person that really was an expert was Petrar. You really should try to find the time to read the BP archives if you haven't already. She spent hundreds of hours doing research. But it was not Arturo that wore Petrar down, it was Beagel and Rangoon. We can't blame everything on Arturo, though it didn't help that they had him to write their copy. Even then, between the three of us, Bink, Petrar and I, we could have survived until outside editors arrived on the scene to put his drafts in place. But by then Petrar had thrown in the towel and Bink was (I guess) busy with other things. I was the only one left. It started when Arturo had put out a draft and no editor responded. I still don't understnd why Beagel ignored it. So Arturo went to WP:COIN to ask what to do, saying everybody seemed to be too busy (ignoring the possibility that we were ignoring it on purpose) and he was advised to send notes to the top editors of the article. So he sent notes to the people that he thought might put it in. Connolly, for one. In the end an unknown editor put it in. That's when things started to go bad. Petrar was gone, Bink hadn't been around and I was the only one left. Then the next thing I know I have an administrator saying that the article editors must have been asleep at the wheel. Did you see his note on Jimbo's page? He clearly had not even read the talk page and had no idea what he was talking about. This is what we have to deal with. No wonder some people just quit. Gandydancer (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

You must be terribly frustrated. Have you seen the ghostwriting essay? You may want to contribute to it. Coretheapple (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I just read it a little while ago. It's good. WP is lucky to have an editor that's not afraid to rock the boat. I do have my EPA experience but most people do not want to believe that their own government is capable of engaging in the same tactics that any corporation is capable of. In fact, even worse. Gandydancer (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think that people are more willing to believe such things about the government than corporations. Coretheapple (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, may be. There is a huge amount of anger and mistrust at the gov't right now from both the right and left. BTW, have you seen this? [[4]]

Yes I did. I just haven't had a chance to read the full discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Chevron

Gandydancer, as suggested I've looked at the Chevron article and am deeply disturbed. Here we have, as at BP, an instance of a corporate editor abiding by the rules, while at the same time dominating the talk page with innumerable requests for major alterations and en masse textual changes to the article. If a corporation wishes to become so intimately involved in the Wikipedia editorial process, that needs to be disclosed to readers. Coretheapple (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If you feel strongly, perhaps a Village Pump proposal should be made.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

BP -culture of editing

Hi Gandy

As I wrote on the Talk page, the culture of editing on the BP page is all messed up. I mentioned to Core on his/her page that it seems to me that a set of editors there has evolved a set of tactics, marginally within the bounds of wikipedia policy but sometimes out of it, to prevent the addition of negative information about BP. I am not saying it is intentional - many cultures just evolve unthinkingly -- but the patterns are there to see. The quick delete, the constant demands they make on people with ideas for content (especially demands that similar content be added to other articles - which is really crazy), the authoritative and sometimes condescending attitude, the endless "not good enough" to proposed content - all this keeps the page frozen and is very unwikipedia. And I have watched your interactions on Talk -- in good faith, you are trying to meet all these crazy demands and trying to please them. They are not playing by the same rules nor with the same goal of actually trying to create new content and improve the article; they are just interfering with your effort to do it. I don't think this is going to lead to the outcome you want, and I cannot imagine that it is any fun. Rather than revert content, we should edit it! Make it better. Let the article grow. I may not have picked the best 'test case' to start changing the culture but it is good enough. Your support of the quick delete piece of this seems to me, to be damaging to your own efforts to improve the article. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the addition because I believed it to be little more than gossip--just as I stated when I did it. I undid my delete per talk page discussion because I believe that one must always remain aware that their own position may not be correct or that it may be biased.

As to your overview, I know because I lived through it. It is not news to me. I can't imagine what interaction you are speaking of, is it the Prudhoe Bay section? If so, note that I gained no support for my position and had no choice but to back off. In fact I still believe that the wording needs improvement, but I'd need support for that--support that did not present in the discussion. I can't imagine what else I could have done. Gandydancer (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry you had to live through that. As I wrote on the Talk page, the mechanism that got set up was this quick delete thing, which meant one had to get consensus first on the Talk page for adding anything, and it is so easy to deny consensus, which left you in a terrible position. Content that doesn't clearly violate policy needs to stand and be edited, unless there is consensus to remove it... not the other way around. There was such a clear power dynamic going on and you were the powerless one... I am sorry. Really frustrating. I intend to work on this article for a while - there is a lot it needs. Just want to add, that I am mindful of the way the content is structured - BP is a huge company with a long history around the world, and several sub-articles have already been set up to deal with the massive amount of content about BP that editors have generated over the years. So there will always be judgement calls about whether content belongs in the main article or in a subarticle. One thing I really don't like in Wikipedia is the way long long sections on the same matter get generated in different articles; people edit one and not the other and vice versa, and pretty soon you have to read two or more long articles to get all the information Wikipedia has on the topic.. and sometimes the sets of content contradict one another, which to me is a really bad thing. Generally I favor having the section in the broader article literally be a copy/paste of the lede from the subarticle, with citations added. I know everybody doesn't think that way, but I do. I am just saying all this, to say that I cannot promise ahead of time to support whatever content you want to add in the main BP article - but I will do my best to see that everybody including you is happy enough... and to try to stop this quick delete thing most of all.Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I just want to emphasize that I really empathize with you... i got very frustrated just reading the Talk page and I cannot imagine how bad it was to be in the middle of it. I am sorry that nobody responded to your calls for help. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, please don't get discouraged. I actually have to take a brief enforced leave of absence to take care of some neglected work as well as my taxes, and maybe you'd benefit from a brief break? Don't even look at Wikipedia. I'm not for another week. But I'm glad I checked in and found this. Coretheapple (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the winds have freshened or changed directions--at any rate the article seems to be moving out of the doldrums. I certainly do appreciate it. I welcome the new editors. The article has been ignored for a long time and to have many eyes watching it will certainly help to improve its integrity. Hopefully WP will move beyond placing blame on the paid editors and WP editors and admit that the blame is in the policies put in place by the "higher ups". Or of course, even better yet, that no blame need be placed at all. Gandydancer (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

(friendly stalker)Working contrary to the flow can be exhausting as well as frustrating. From what I read in the BP talk, I Wholeheartedly agree with Jdog that a power dynamic was spinning a web and some editors got stuck in it. Working together, as united as diverse editors can be, maybe we can change the direction of the article and provide Our Reader with something every editor that works on the article can be proud of. Quite a Challenge! ```Buster Seven Talk 12:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Retaining a Quality Editor

I left you a message here. Thanks. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, GD. A profit-maximizing entity, including the top 5 oil/energy corporations, cannot afford not to patrol WP, esp. hot articles like the one we just commented on. Large payouts loom and public opinion can provide political pressure, for example, to reject a sweetheart settlement. Public relations (which of course used to be called "propaganda") is thus critical and, in fact, I have met pr firm professional whose main job focus is "social media" and on-line "branding" etc. Thus, we should expect that corporate pr flacks are here. The more reliable whitewashers, spinners and obfuscaters are the most likely suspects, although I cannot determine this for, let alone accuse, any individual editor. If I had the time, I would get software that can track the source of edits. In our corporate world, we need to accept that reality just as we have come to expect that the systems that support life on Earth are under major attack from several major industries. But the good news is that every good edit helps to inform people and is read by many people, even in instances in which it is ultimately run over by spinners and whitewashers. In the meantime, I see no alternative but to plug away and to keep improving WP articles by following the rules to keep adding content that the public deserves to know about regarding its collective situation. So we should focus our time on adding important info to articles that matter. Don't get mad or discouraged; get even by redoubling your efforts here.--NYCJosh (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Gandydancer (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For a committed, compassionate, bright editor: take a break for a couple of days and keep up the good work, GD! NYCJosh (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Josh! You should come over and visit at the BP article! Gandydancer (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

your comment at BP talk on 8 April 2013 (UTC)

on the above date you wrote: "It seems that you have taken my question as a soapbox opportunity, but never mind--let's just move forward." as i commented on the page, I was floored by this. you asked me a very open-ended question: "Ten years ago Atle Christer Christiansen asked the question, "Can BP deliver?" What do you think, did they deliver or not?" and you even t hrough several copyedits carefully set that off from the rest of what you wrote. As I wrote in my response there, i thought your question was strange in directly asking me for my opinion, but especially because of how framed it (setting it off, and the direct question) I answered it. at the end I even wrote, "Is that the sort of answer you were looking for?" because i was not sure. apparently it was not. but for you to characterize my attempt to be responsive to you as "a soapbox opportunity"... well I just feel like you set me up to knock me down. You haven't responded on the BP page so I am bringing it here. I feel you have treated me very unfairly. And the whole thread was started with my effort to reach out to you -- to ask you, as someone who is especially concerned with BP's broader safety/environmental/citizenship record, what you thought of a source I was thinking of basing content on. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I am taking this effort because we seem to work on a lot of the same articles. If you don't want to discuss this, that is your call of course. You are free to just delete this. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Human breast milk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sterile (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Ha! I have to say you made me laugh out loud. Coretheapple (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

How did you chose your name? Gandydancer (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, pure randomness. I had just found an apple corer in the kitchen. Coretheapple (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - image moved

Gandy, I should have written an edit summary for the image move. It was to improve readability; on my screen the second spraying image and the oil worker image (that i moved to "use" section) end up across from each other, squeezing the text. No biggie, though. I think this only happens on wide screens and iPads. petrarchan47tc 21:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed the second airplane spraying image, and this solved the squish problem. Thanks! petrarchan47tc 01:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. I wanted it at that position because the article mentioned the need for protective gear in that place. I was not aware that some screens were showing it differently, though I do know that by changing the size of my screen (by pressing Ctrl and - or =/+) they can be misplaced--I don't know why. Gandydancer (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. It's very good though, as I otherwise wouldn't have noticed we had almost the same picture twice (plane spraying). On another note, I'm having an idea about paid editing and talk page dynamics - you can check my talk page if interested. I'd love to hear your thoughts. It's the second section from the bottom re Gulf of Mexico updates. petrarchan47tc 19:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Gandy, I've left a slightly more polished version of my idea here. Feel free to comment :) petrarchan47tc 22:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Your story is requested

Gandy,

I just wrote this on Binksternet's talk page and thought I'd just copy it here. I wonder if you would be willing to add your viewpoint, since there are so few of us who have this particular insight? Obviously, no pressure either way :)

We are chipping away at beginning a conversation about policy change. I was thinking... only you, me and Gandydancer are able to offer an objective view of the BP talk page dynamics over a longer term. The recent brou - haha brought in a couple new editors who, being indies, can't be there everyday and being new, don't have the advantage of a bigger picture. That page is a fantastic case study for the problem we are attempting to address. It's one we three are quite familiar with, and i wondered if you might begin to think of summarizing your experience or take on things as a part of that case study? You can leave it anywhere that feels right - my talk page, here or here. The latter is probably best. I understand the vortex there and the desire to be doing almost anything else ;) so I thought a summary like this will take less time on your part but would really serve to advance the page itself, in the long run. petrarchan47tc 00:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

My garden in August

Petra, do you really think it would do any good? The article talk pages are all there for anyone to read. I don't really have anything to add. There just does not seem to be any interest. And even with all the uproar and complaints not one of them actually did the editing that was needed to correct the Prudhoe Bay section. I don't think they really cared--they only wanted to be sure that Arturo was held up as beyond criticism and that he would not be blamed for his input--just blame the editors for being asleep at the wheel.

And to have Delicious Carbuncle come to talk page and be so rude and call me a shill because I didn't agree with him was really insulting and pretty much made me reconsider whether or not I want to even try to keep that article and similar articles honest. If the posts that MastCell made on Jimbo's page are being ignored there certainly is nothing that I can say that is going to make any difference. It was always important for me to be proud of my work and have respect for my place of work--I've lost my respect for Jimbo. I'm very busy with my gardening right now and don't have much time for wikipedia anyway. Gandydancer (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I totally understand your feelings, especially having seen your garden, which is a beaut, given the season. Anyone who can raise a garden in the rocky soil and short growing season of Maine certainly has my admiration. On BP, one thing that maybe would help the indie editors is to have a communal "to do" list, either on the BP talk page or preferably elsewhere, on what needs to be done in the various BP-related articles. That way people won't feel that the burden is all on them. I do hope that you find time to help out more, perhaps with the request P is making above when you have the time, and I'm flattered to see the quote from me at the top of your user page. Coretheapple (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Delicious Carbuncle was talking about jtdog, not you. I understand your loss of respect for the high ups, and yes, you have indeed given more effort than anyone should be asked to give. Your beautiful garden, Binksternet's career, Buster's travels, Core's long weekends - these are all signs of independent editors, reasons why we can't be here everyday - and explains why Jimbo is dead wrong when he declares things are working just fine. petrarchan47tc 20:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S., please tell your garden hi for me. I wish I could be there. petrarchan47tc 20:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, very well put. I hope that Gandy just doesn't throw up his hands. Believe me, walking away for a few days helped a lot. It is frustrating to do work and for some editor, who might be younger than shoes one has in the closet, pushing a button to revert. But such things can be countered and fought when they are improper. Coretheapple (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

With enough support, it can be done. petrarchan47tc 01:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Petra, you are not correct about Delicious Carbuncle. In the talk page exchange he either ignored me or refused to accept that I knew what I was talking about, preferring to take the word of a news report to mine. This entire incident reminds me of an experience I had years ago as a whistle blower. It was one of the worst times in my life and really does bring out the worst in people. As it did in Delicious Carbuncle. For him to appear at the article and as much as demand that I or someone else edit into the article what he believed to be correct was as bad as to have Arturo demand that we add his suggestions. And if we don't, to suggest that we must be environmental shills. I saw enough scapegoating of workers when it was management that was to blame in my years of paid work. I did not put up with it then, and I will speak out against it now. There was no excuse for him to demand anything as though he has special rank or status around here. That he just sulked away leaving a "shills" parting shot--not willing to roll up his sleeves and dig in--puts him at a very low rank indeed, in my book.

I notice that after a rush of edits on Jimbo's page everything has gone back to no further conversation--you'd think it had all been solved and sometime soon in the future there won't be another big media story. And once again I guess that there will be a rush of blaming the worker bees who actually work on these difficult articles by the boyz who hang out on Jimbo's talk page.

The big media story should be that Wikipedia is looking for environmental/watchdog groups to offer a diff POV for articles such as this. I doubt that if I email one of them I'd get a response, but if Jimbo did they sure would. The question is, does he want fair and balanced or not?

My exchange with DC is below:

DC has asked if the "specific deficiencies" brought out in the ZDNet article of March 27 have been addressed. He has specifically asked about the Lisburne Field spill of Nov 2009 that spilled 13,500 gallons that was mentioned in the Alaska news timeline published in Nov 2011 and used as a ref for the ZDNet article. What ZDNet does not seem to understand (and perhaps some editors here as well) is that this article is about BP, not every "little" oil spill that they are responsible for. This spill would have only been significant if they had lost their case, but they did not. For comparison, have a look at this chart that shows just one month of spills around the world. [4]. DC, does this address your question re the Lisburne field question? To move forward perhaps you can make a list of the other concerns that you believe need to be addressed. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

But instead he replied:

In any other article I would simply add a sentence about the Lisburne Field spill to the Prudhoe Bay section, but I think I know what the result here would be. I could point out that a much smaller methanol/oil/water spill was already included in that section written by Arturo, but I'm sure that someone would argue with that, at great and pointless length. Frankly, I don't have the time to deal with the obstacles that are being put up here, so I will leave you to yourselves. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Gandydancer (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It's plain that DC was being lazy and inflammatory, and didn't do anything to investigate the situation or to distinguish between paid editors/BP shills and editors who had fought valiantly to make that article (and others) a representation of reality. Coretheapple (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks--that's what I thought. Gandydancer (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, that was obvious. If he was contributing in good faith he would still be there. Coretheapple (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I've just significantly expanded the Deepwater Horizon section to make the article have some relationship to the actuality of that company, and any help you guys can provide in that realm, especially when it comes to keeping it from shriveling back up again, would be great. I totally understand what a slog it has been, and how the talk page has been used for obstruction, obfuscation and filibustering. Coretheapple (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Petra could possibly agree here, but it seems to me that you have been instrumental in introducing a whole new paradigm shift to that article. Back when Rangoon and Beagle with their assistants were in charge of the article there was not a lot that we could do and it was just natural to become adjusted to the fact that change would come only slowly and with great difficulty--if at all. But anyway, I need some adjustment time to think about your new additions. Planted 11 fruit trees yesterday! Now I'm out to the garden... Gandydancer (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Well thank you but... now you have me intrigued. On the gardening that is. Do you think it's too early to plant tomatoes? My brother has a house out on the Delaware Water Gap, and he was just starting a garden. Worried about early frosts and all that.

But yes, on the BP article, I think it's necessary to rethink that entire article. It is too short, it does not reflect reality. For instance, somehow federal charges of market manipulation, accompanied by guilty pleas, were trivialized in the header as mere "accusations." Coretheapple (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding DC, my comment was that "shill" was not directed towards you, but rather jtdog. DC wrote me an email and copied an email he had sent to you explaining this. But I think your email still isn't working so you didn't get it. He said he wouldn't mind if the content of the email was public, but choose email because using the word "shill" is frowned upon here. I don't want one individual's comments to keep you from the page, or for a misinterpretation to leave you with bad feelings unnecessarily. As for Jimbo, you are right - if he supported NPOV as much as he supports BP, we'd be in good shape. Recently it was revealed that he still hasn't awarded prize money to recipients of Wiki's biggest prize. This was brought to his talk page, and again, like in the case of Violet Blue and the BP scandal, he badmouthed the author of the article and was done with it. Then he removed the whole thing from his talk page. In the BP case, he simply left his talk page until (the moment) the issue had gone into archives. Until he steps down or until someone with better principles becomes the new Voice of Wikipedia, we are swimming upstream. As for the BP analysis/follow-up, I think that's what we're chipping away at now. And BusterSeven is getting ready to bring it up again at Jimbo's talk. He might want to sweep it under the rug, but it isn't completely up to him. This is the last thing that should be swept under the rug. And his habit of not being fully transparent is going to be confronted. petrarchan47tc 19:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I notice that Wales picks his battles carefully. When he's in the wrong he just stays away or shuts down the conversation. I hadn't heard about that award thing. He could be sued over that, you know. Coretheapple (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Short note. Thanks for the update P. It's hard to explain but I'm in a sort of weird grieving regarding my disappointment re JImbo. It started with your post about his hx with support for Ayn Rand. She just makes my blood run cold... {So does Jytdog.} Actually DC does too. You are right, my hotmail is not working. But DC made a public statement about me and he should have made a public statement to me as well. It was very creepy to have my "name" in Huff Post and elsewhere as the one that vetted Arturo's Prudhoe Bay's entry. As though I added it to the article. I felt abandoned--both you and Bink were not around. I still feel that way when I am reminded that DC has been here "forever" and I am in the wrong for making any complaints. Gandydancer (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I hope you can resume contributing when you can. Your disappointment is understandable, so I can't exactly make an enthusiastic pitch for your involvement. Coretheapple (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

As for DC, it wasn't about you that the public statement was made, and he indicated to me that he has not comfortable addressing the "shill" comment in public, it's frowned upon, as he stated. I don't know CD's history, i just received one email in which he expressed that he was not up for engaging with the BP page, and I really don't blame him. If i could walk away, I would. (I've tried!) DC was concerned that your feelings were hurt, please know that he doesn't think you are a shill by any means. But, you have every reason to be upset after your year at the BP page.

Gandy, your work on Wikipedia is beyond stellar. No one has said otherwise that I know of. As for Jimbo, I knew nothing - nada - about him other than what his face looked like. I had assumed up until this point that Wikipedia did NOT have a King, and wouldn't tolerate it. But still, even though he had no pedestal to fall from in my case, I feel the same as you - extremely disheartened to discover these revelations. petrarchan47tc 22:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

jeesh

...was so excited to interact with what i thought was a highly recommended admin. now i seem to remember you may have retracted that claim at some point, but unfortunately i remembered too late. after bringing what i thought would be very appreciated context for an article they've taken some ownership of, i instead feel as if i was kicked in the stomach, swiftly. petrarchan47tc 23:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do think very highly of NW. I don't understand why you are upset--it seems like information that someone that has an interest in the case could use. But I'd sure never be interested either. Gandydancer (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it was very good information for anyone working on that page as intimately as he has been, from what I understand. Shocking reception. No biggie, I guess. petrarchan47tc 03:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Because sometimes, you just need a friend. Thank you for being that for me. petrarchan47tc 23:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

So true. xxxooo

H7N9

Gandydancer, I've noticed that you and ChrisGualtieri have had a bit of disagreement about what, if anything, should be said in the introduction of Influenza A virus subtype H7N9 regarding elderly males stricken with H7N9. In the article discussion page I've proposed a compromise. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at it and maybe add your thoughts to the discussion. —RP88 ^(talk) 15:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Appreciate your note (which I missed till just now--I've been quite busy). I find that editor quite difficult. On the other hand, you seem very easy to get along with. Please feel free to copy edit or change anything that I add to the article as it is my impression that you are a good editor more interested in a good article than an inflated ego. Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Some people are so predictable, aren't they?

In view of the fact that this editor is now calling us "anti-BP-POV-pushers" I thought I'd post this exchange with him from a little over a year ago. BTW, this quote was taken from the US Department of Justice report if I remember correctly:

I don't consider removing almost everything I wrote a compromise. I have no problem removing the copy about "approximately fifty different Cracker Barrel restaurants in seven states" as a compromise, but I believe that "Specifically, they found that Cracker Barrel had "allowed white servers to refuse to wait on African-American customers; segregated customer seating by race; seated white customers before African-American customers who arrived earlier; provided inferior service to African-American customers after they were seated; and treated African-Americans who complained about the quality of Cracker Barrel's food or service less favorably than white customers who lodged similar complaints" should be kept in the article. To suggest that it's important and appropriate to include, "Breakfast is served all day, and there are two separate menus: one for breakfast, the other for lunch and dinner. Since the first restaurant opened, the menu has featured Southern specialties, including biscuits, fried chicken and catfish;[6] seasonal and regional menu items were added during the 1980s and 1990s", while telling me that the inclusion of absolutely outrageous racial discrimination is so inappropriate that the article would need to be sent back for a second GAR is...is very disturbing. Gandydancer (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That comment rather implies that you have a personal, negative interest in Cracker Barrel. The point of this article isn't to cover "outrageous racial discrimination", but to serve as a well-written overview of everything about Cracker Barrel. That includes the controversies, yes, but also things like their menus and decor and other information like that. We shouldn't be trying to make an expansive section about the racial discrimination issue. That would violate due weight. SilverserenC 23:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

lol

I love your edit summary "???". Mine was "it feels like the Twilight Zone in here". I just literally couldn't believe my fingers had to type "Yes". They wanted so badly to type "WT actual F are you even asking? Do you realize other people are reading this? Your reputation as an editor is being evaluated at all times, and you want to go on record saying the BP oil spill should not be mentioned on the BP Wikpedia page? I was laughing out loud as I responded with my "Support" and impressed I was able to leave it at that. petrarchan47tc 22:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

wheat escape

Version you reverted to says "volunteer wheat from a field two miles away owned by the same farmer and planted with the same seed was tested" and I had changed it to "volunteer wheat from a field two miles away owned by the same farmer and also used as a test field". If this is what you think I am misreading... I found "planted with the same seed" to be ambiguous ('same seed' - which seed?) and thought "used as a test field" was more clear. That's all. The ambiguity could be clarified by "volunteer wheat from a field two miles away owned by the same farmer and had been planted with the same GMO seed in field trials was tested" . Do you see what i was trying to do? As for the present tense/past tense thing... wikipedia is not a newspaper and in general I put things in the past tense whenever I can. The discovery threatened exports is true today. ... Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right in that the article is not very clear about how the plants were discovered. But it does say that they tested the seed but does not say anything about a test field. A test field is when a seed company contracts with a grower to test seed for them. As for tense, I'd say that the seed is in the process of threatening export sales and will be for the next few months. After this all dies down it can be changed to past tense. At least from what I remember from the article--if we still don't agree I will read it all again... Gandydancer (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

March against Monsanto

[5] The content has all been added in the last couple of days. This is not enough time for a consensus to have been established, and I suggest you self-revert per WP:BRD. Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You are suggesting that I should just ignore the fact that IRWolfie, using the summary, Recent changes violate neutrality and include many fringe new age claims, deleted more than half of the article including the entire "issues" section? It is not a matter of WP:BRD we are seeing here--I'd consider it to be vandalism. I don't care how certain one is that they are in the right, deleting half an article is never acceptable. Small wonder that editing certain articles is so frustrating. Gandydancer (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

There are worse articles. ;-) I assume that he restored an earlier version of the page that didn't have the issues, and was not necessarily rejecting everything. There are arguments to defend that practice, but I don't do it myself so if you object he would be the one to ask. That said, the issue is past now so I don't mind agreeing to disagree. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

....for congratulating Editor Cerebellum. Let me take this moment to say that, in a collaborative way, you share Petrarchans recent Award. Thanks for all you do. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Co-sign xxxooo petrarchan47tc 20:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Granite

Hi, took me a while, but I finally got there. It's been a long time since I lived in that area and though the name is so familiar, I've just realized that I don't think I've ever been through Granite. Is it a ghost town? I've driven the route via Leadville to Independence Pass lots of times, but never south from Leadville. Anyway, yeah, that page needs some work and I'd be happy to clean it up a bit. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Victoria (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's neither a town nor a ghost town. It didn't die out entirely because both a railroad and a main highway run through it. What do you think needs to be done to improve the article? Do you think I overdid it when I used it as a starting point to discuss the surrounding history? Gandydancer (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I see what you did with the photos--great job and thanks so much! I have another photo sent to me by an old friend, the Buena Vista town historian, that shows the train wreck mentioned in the article. Here [6] She also sent the vintage photo that is in the article. I had the train one in as well and a Commons do-gooder removed it because I said it was my own work--I do that because it is the only way that it is simple enough for me to figure out how to upload photos. I asked him for help to upload it properly and he just ignored me. grrr. Would you know how to upload it to Commons? Gandydancer (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I can help upload photos and sometimes it's just easier to do it here instead of Commons. I'll look at the one linked above and unless I have questions about it, I'll upload for you. I've only had a chance to glance at the article briefly and I like a lot what you've done with the background. I tend to avoid writing about towns because of all the demographics that need to be added and such. Let me read it and get back to you - but obviously the strategic location is important and maybe that can be expanded a bit. When I have time, soon, I'll give it a copyedit, read it carefully, and then I'll have a better sense. Give me a few days for the upload - real life is a little busy right now. Victoria (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: March Against Monsanto

return statement which offers scientific position on GMOs

I don't understand where you got the idea that the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association, a biotech lobbying group which exists to promote Monsanto products, "offers a scientific position on GMOs", but it doesn't. There actually isn't a scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs. Viriditas (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You are confused--that's not what I said. Gandydancer (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not confused about anything. You apparently believe that the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association represents the scientific position on GMOs. And yes, that's exactly what you said. Viriditas (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

photos not informative for this article--removed

Let's see, a photo of the CEO of Monsanto is not informative for an article called "March Against Monsanto" in a section where the CEO is quoted? Run that by me again? Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

the article is about a protest movement not a debate about GM crops

Hector Valenzuela is part of the March Against Monsanto protest movement and his expert opinion is appropriate for this article. I will be returning the content. If you have any questions, you are free to use the talk page to voice your concerns. That you would remove an expert opinion and leave in the opinion of Monsanto's front group is quite troubling. Please stop editing unilaterally without really understanding the content that you are removing. Viriditas (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

mostly unrelated unknot illustration for visual interest and possible contemplation

Hey Gandy, I have a lot of respect for you and I understand why you find the "scientific consensus" discussion at this page to be mad frustrating. I am going to consider what you said about limiting this discussion at the MAM talk page. I just hope you also understand how petrachan and i (and probably others) feel about this single "scientific consensus" statement being reproduced in a half dozen other articles—when, we feel, the available literature doesn't really support the claim.

Regardless of who might be propagating it on Wikipedia, the statement itself, with its difficult-to-verify conditional statements about "on the market" and "compared to conventional crops", is crafted very carefully by the industry because it's something they feel they can best defend. Raising the question of why we are including this precise statement at March Against Monsanto, when none of the sources for it even discuss March Against Monsanto. Note that I didn't enter this realm of articles because of a pre-existing concern about GMOs. I was drawn to them pretty much only because (about this time a year ago) I was disturbed by what seemed like a pattern of corporate manipulation at the Monsanto page.

I get that you see the 'scientific consensus on human health' claim as a lost cause, and maybe you're right. Certainly, there much worse harms caused by Monsanto's practices—such as the general promulgation of monoculture and (probably) Farmer suicides in India—and so maybe either way it would be better to go beyond this health claim. Again I just wanted to share with you how i'm feeling about it. peace groupuscule (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

My addition to the MAM talk page yesterday was simply to point out that it is very biased to include the list of 5 random links to GMO-is-safe science without any additional information, even if it was to say that one singular scientist somewhere had questioned these findings. It seems reasonable to add that this pro-GMO science comes from studies done by the industry and are no longer than 90 days. As a reader, I would expect these little tidbits to be included in an encyclopedia. This information regarding questioning GMO safety was included in much, if not all, of the coverage of the March and protesters. It is not normal at wikipedia to include only side of the story. There is much at MAM that is not normal for any other wiki article, in my experience. I haven't any trouble (not including the BP page here) editing, adding content, and having decent, adult talk page conversations about content anywhere else on wiki. If one were to check out the articles I most work on, they would see I do not edit any differently across articles regarding what types of sourcing I use, how I quote them, and how I present information in an informative, neutral way (allowing of course, for the inevitable blind spot we all have concerning our own actions and motivations). The thing is, I get in big trouble when I venture near GMO articles. I get taken to noticeboards and now, it appears, I am being labelled part of an anti-BP cult, and part of some anti-corporate team. At MAM I am treated like Wikipedia's worst menace. At MAM, the edits are arguments that win the day, that control content, are arguments and edits that would be laughed out of town on a normal wiki page. I don't understand why so few speak out against this, except that maybe they don't want to be blacklisted like what is happening to me. What is happening at MAM simply is not normal. Yet is is happening in broad daylight. In a similar vein, an oppose to Buster's recent admin try was based solely on his support of me, because I have spoken out against corporate bias. Again, to my mind, this behaviour should not be allowed and this editor should have been laughed off wikipedia altogether for revenge iVoting, and making a mockery of noticeboards. But it is me who is the outcast and in the minority. This seems further evidence that the editors who, for whatever reason, seem to want to make sure large companies look as good as possible, vastly outnumber the indies left on wiki. (Next time I leave a note here, I promise to bring a nice visual too.) petrarchan47tc 19:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The Mind the Gap Barnstar

...is awarded to User:Gandydancer who has dilegently worked to close the gender gap on Wikipedia and related projects through content contributions, outreach, community changes and related actions.

		Mind the Gap Award
		For saying the right thing, at the right time, in the right place, to the right people. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

How sweet of you Buster! Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment on my user page

Hi Gandydancer, I just saw your comment on my user page. My intention on mentioning that you were "unhappy" in the user page explanation was to make clear that although you had initially been positive about the rewrite, you later had very strong concerns, including about my explanation of not having known about the consent order. It was not meant to single you out, but to flag that later the information you noticed was not included was the cause of some concern. I will change the wording, since it seems that you do not feel that this is the best way to explain the situation. Also, although I had included the link to the discussion in the bullets above the explanation, I can also include this in the explanatory prose and once I've made these changes, I would like to remove the comment. It is my goal for this page to stand as my explanation. Further discussion on my talk page is always welcome, though. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arturo, Thanks for the note but it is not considered acceptable to delete other editor's edits. If an editor has replied we are pretty much stuck with what we said. My personal life has been very busy but I hope to find time soon to continue this conversation. Gandydancer (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, thank you, I am open to continuing our conversation about this if it would be helpful and clear anything up. Regarding the comment on my user page, I am afraid that as I updated the page I did remove it. I did check the guidelines about this, which say that it is ok to remove comments if I have read them. As the guideline says, your comment will be visible in the page's history should anyone need to refer back to it. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

As you will, however most people apparently prefer to go by the Wikipedia talk page guidelines which I, and apparently others, believe to be much better, even though it may leave us regretting our words from time to time. Since you continue to refer to the section on your talk page in which you suggest that I have wrongly characterized you at the BP article, I hope to answer that post when I have time. As you can see by the above post from Viriditas, when I am in total disagreement with another editor I sometimes just ignore the post - drama is very disagreeable to me. But you keep going back to it, so I will review it and give it a reply when I have time. Gandydancer (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Information for Prudhoe Bay oil spill article

Hi Gandydancer, as you have done a lot of work on expanding the Prudhoe Bay oil spill article, I wanted to come and ask you if you would like to look at some information I have provided on the Talk page there. The damages suit brought by the State of Alaska is not yet included, so I have provided some details and sources for that. I have provided some sources for a few other details that are not yet given such as the length of pipeline that was replaced and details of the smaller spill in August 2006 (this is mentioned briefly but there's no detail on how much was spilled). Additionally, you may remember that Jytdog had asked if I would be able to provide a map of BP's Prudhoe Bay operations. I have now uploaded this and provided a link to the image on the article's Talk. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I did look at the info. I remember that I had decided to skip the small spill info and was aware that the state was expecting to be compensated but forgot to follow through. I'll put that info in when I have time unless someone beats me to it. :D Gandydancer (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Gandydancer. Regarding the smaller spill, I had thought it might be helpful to have a bit more detail on this but I understand if you think that more information is not needed here. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Health consequences of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "AutoBB-235" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "AutoBB-233" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "AutoBB-227" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "AutoBB-226" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Please fix the errors. Thanks. --Frze (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I will continue to work on that article for a few days. Do you know how to fix them? Gandydancer (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Gandy, I'd like to help with that article if I can. Newbie question: what is an MEDRS-certified source? Coretheapple (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow! I'd be just thrilled if you'd help! The best way to discuss MEDRS would be to pull up the one Slim used and discuss it. This one sounds good [7] and I plan to read it. Do you have {for instance} university access? If not we can find someone to get it for us. Also, here is some reading material:

• This one is from the June workshop discussed in the article. I've read it once and am going through it again. I don't know how helpful it will be for the article but it has helped me a lot because it was written by experts in the field and they provide a good deal of background information, which frankly right now is about all we've got. I had a lot of doubts re the reported health effects since it only figures that people want to stick it to BP, but the summary has helped me to realize that lasting health effects can be expected. And when you add the amount and length of the spill to the massive use of Corexit used which undoubtedly potentiates the already harmful chemicals in the oil, it really becomes even more of an unknown.[8]

• Also, be sure to read this: [9] I was almost ready to delete that information because I remember when it happened I was not sure it should be in the article. However, wondering how much media it rec'd I googled it and found a lot, plus I found this source that made me strongly believe that it does belong in the article. But that's the sort of thing where it helps to have two opinions rather than only my own.

• A gov't site: [10]--

• A book: [11] Quote: Direct chemical exposures can occur to a fetus or a child across the placenta or by ingestion, ... A number of studies have also documented a broad range of potential effects on ... In terms of exposure to benzene itself, some studies have shown associations with spontaneous abortion (Xu, 1998), neural-crest birth defects ... I really noted that because Slim expressed doubts about miscarriages...which is understandable--I did as well.

I believe that it is only human nature to want to wrap things up and move on. To those of us that were not affected, certainly it now seems ancient history. Well anyway..., so good to talk to a man with true grit! Later, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I list a book above but I see that it actually is the report from the 2010 study group. I looked for other books but did not see anything--perhaps you will have better luck. Here are the local news reports [12] from Louisianna.

As you can see, I wrote the lead first as that seemed a good way to organize my thoughts. I'd appreciate any feedback. Looking forward to discussion. Please be blunt--there is no reason to worry about sugar-coating opinions. Gandydancer (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gandy. Those are helpful examples. I'll see what I can find. Coretheapple (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This study [13] will help to pull the 2010 NAIM groups report together with the DWH info and make their information from past spills applicable to this one. Gandydancer (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• [14] article
• [15] no copy On 28 February, after 10 months of hearing anecdotal stories of flulike symptoms, rashes, heat stroke, and stress from cleanup workers in the Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services launched the long-awaited Gulf Long-term Follow-up Study through the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The largest, most comprehensive study of long-term health effects from an oil spill, it will attempt to collect health data on cleanup workers by contacting 100,000 of them directly and tracking 55,000 for at least 5 years, looking at long-term problems such as cancer, birth defects, and psychosocial issues. But at this juncture, experts worry that they won't know what to look for. Any short-term physiological effects such as elevated levels of biomarkers or telltale rashes that could be definitively linked to the spill are long gone, as are toxicants in workers' blood that could have provided information on exposure levels. What remains is an economically depressed community in which many suffer from stress-related illnesses that will be difficult to pin on any particular cause.[16]

• [17] nursing considerations

• [18] Neurotoxicity following acute inhalation exposure to the oil dispersant COREXIT EC9500A.

Sriram K, Lin GX, Jefferson AM, Goldsmith WT, Jackson M, McKinney W, Frazer DG, Robinson VA, Castranova V. Source

Health Effects Laboratory Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Toxicology and Molecular Biology Branch, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505, USA. kos4@cdc.gov Abstract

Consequent to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, there is an emergent concern about the short- and long-term adverse health effects of exposure to crude oil, weathered-oil products, and oil dispersants among the workforce employed to contain and clean up the spill. Oil dispersants typically comprise of a mixture of solvents and surfactants that break down floating oil to micrometer-sized droplets within the water column, thus preventing it from reaching the shorelines. As dispersants are generally sprayed from the air, workers are at risk for exposure primarily via inhalation. Such inhaled fractions might potentially permeate or translocate to the brain via olfactory or systemic circulation, producing central nervous system (CNS) abnormalities. To determine whether oil dispersants pose a neurological risk, male Sprague-Dawley rats were exposed by whole-body inhalation exposure to a model oil dispersant, COREXIT EC9500A (CE; approximately 27 mg/m(3) × 5 h/d × 1 d), and various molecular indices of neural dysfunction were evaluated in discrete brain areas, at 1 or 7 d postexposure. Exposure to CE produced partial loss of olfactory marker protein in the olfactory bulb. CE also reduced tyrosine hydroxylase protein content in the striatum. Further, CE altered the levels of various synaptic and neuronal intermediate filament proteins in specific brain areas. Reactive astrogliosis, as evidenced by increased expression of glial fibrillary acidic protein, was observed in the hippocampus and frontal cortex following exposure to CE. Collectively, these findings are suggestive of disruptions in olfactory signal transduction, axonal function, and synaptic vesicle fusion, events that potentially result in an imbalance in neurotransmitter signaling. Whether such acute molecular aberrations might persist and produce chronic neurological deficits remains to be ascertained.

• This news article has a lot of good up to date information: [19] Gandydancer (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Buried in work, but hope to take this up next week. I may be able to get access to peer reviewed studies. Coretheapple (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Core, I'd sure like some help with the health claims settlement section. I am learning about it from here and there and still do not have a good grasp on the whole picture. News report from Jan 2011: Kenneth Feinberg using a $20 billion fund set aside by BP. So far, Feinberg's organization has paid 59 people about $1,800 per claim for personal injury or death due to the rig explosion or spill.[20] I think that almost all of that went to the men and their families in the explosion. Then I think a class action suit was filed and next in Jan 2013 it was settled (as I have posted in the article). It seems that everybody was happy till they found out that it would be next to impossible to prove that their illnesses were spill related. Plus, I read that physicians were generally not willing to say much of anything for fear of a lawsuit or being called into court, which would of course be a nightmare, something which docs are well-familiar with. Add to that, most of the clean-up workers, the ones who most likely will have long-lasting effects, are people without health insurance who can not afford expensive health workups, etc. Though that is not to say that the children who were affected may not have lasting effects as well because their bodies are less able to rid their systems of toxins. In one place (it was the early study group of international experts that met before the well was capped), the spill was called not only the worst disaster, but the worst health disaster in the US. I have been reading through the local news reports but they need to be organized into useful information. For now, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I personally have access to almost any database out there, and if anyone ever needs access to an article for something I can provide it privately. Just shoot me an email through Wikipedia and I'll take a look. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 14:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to shoot you a note to say that I haven't forgotten you, but July has been hellish! Coretheapple (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2013 (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 "2012 Delhi gang rape case". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 19:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

I've misunderstood the same comment of yours multiple times which was your last comment in the 2012 Delhi rape case. I request you to please clearly explain your comment in such a way that it will be easy to comprehend for anyone. I'm sonwhat bad at English and probably that's the reason I couldn't understand whether you were in favor or against including the victim's name in the article. Thank you very much. TransVannian (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Rereading my comments in the previous discussion re the use of her name I can see where you would be confused about my position. I have added a note to the previous discussion that hopefully makes my position clear. Regarding your belief that her name should be published, it is a strange situation, isn't it. If we had similar laws in the US it certainly would not be acceptable to treat the victim as though she were nameless. On the other hand, considering that in India conviction of the rapist has been rare and condemnation of the woman that was raped common, it can be seen as a way to protect the woman. Gandydancer (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

At DRN I have proved that the consensus of users has been on wrong basis. Lukeno94 said at DRN that the family has not given permission however I proved it exactly opposite. Now he's trying to prove the source I used is unreliable however no matter how many times I prove him wrong he keeps making the same argument. The source is a news website. I request you to please check that source. I know it is reliable and well reputed news websites can be used as a reliable source and reference according to Wiki policies. But confirmation by other editors will further prove he is incorrect. Thank you very much in advance. TransVannian (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Adfitionaly you are somewhat right. Rapists rarely get any strict punishment in my country. In some villages in this country instead of punishing the rapist the leaders or panchayat of that village force the girl to marry the rapist on the totally pathetic excuse it will preserve her dignity. TransVannian (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Dan Wolf

Hi, could you please take a look at my peer review? I'm trying to get it to GA status and I would like some other opinions. Thanks, and I'm sorry for the scary notification alert! Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 05:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure! I'll look at it. Gandydancer (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I only see a few little things--to much use of "Wolf" as I mentioned. There are a few other sm changes and I made a few to the Education section--please feel free to revert. Would you like me to go ahead and make similar sm changes? For instance this sentence:

From flying one route with eight employees and one plane, Cape Air has expanded to become the largest independent regional airline,[5] serving parts of the East Coast and Midwestern United States, and the Carribean and Micronesia with around 1,000 employees.[2

would read better as:

From flying one route with eight employees and one plane, Cape Air has expanded to become the largest independent regional airline,[5] with around 1,000 employees and serving parts of the East Coast and Midwestern United States, and the Carribean and Micronesia.[2

...I think. :=) Let me know. Gandydancer (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that you are now getting some excellent feedback from editors much more capable than I. I will just keep my paws off it for now but let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. Gandydancer (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Hi! Just a friendly note with regard to these: [21][22]. They're MEDRS-acceptable sources, but are still primary, so all the caveats of using primary sources still apply. In fact, they apply more strongly under MEDRS than they usually do otherwise. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gandydancer. You have new messages at Anna Frodesiak's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I cannot follow the link. What is it? Miss Bono ^[zootalk]☆ 13:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A minor change to DRN

Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiThanks!

For your work on breastfeeding! Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Would you be interested in splitting off the HIV section? The article is too long and I doubt that HIV considerations concern most readers. You can see on the talk page where I brought it up and WAID said she'd do it. I forgot about it and never got around to writing a short summary to keep in the article. If I remember correctly, the information may need to be clarified/updated as well. Gandydancer (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Corexit

Hi Gandy,

Sending you a hug, and letting you know i've left the Corexit rough draft at my talk page here, to make it easier to reference. Thank you for all your hard work ~ i trust you won't do anything that isn't fun for you. Blessings, petrarchan47tc 06:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, certainly it was not something that I wanted to do but I have a health background and occasionally work on health-related articles to feel I am fulfilling my WP responsibility to society. ;-P So I took this on. And as usual, once I get into an article it does become enjoyable. I see Jimbo's back and said he misses the good ol' days when it was more fun around here. Now retired, I miss my good ol' days when I used to get to sit around with staff and say vulgar and disgusting things and we'd all laugh (most people would be surprised to hear how medical professionals talk to each other in private). Thanks for your kind words and I wish you the same. Gandydancer (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Cussing is good fun. Fuck Fuck Fuckity Fuck! Xxxxoooo petrarchan47tc 19:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

No Petrar, you do it like this:

Some negative feedback

This beta editor FUCKING SUCKS.

How the fucking fuck do I add an image?

You people are cunts. No wonder wikipedia is losing editors. 31.127.29.115 (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

(This is from the VE feedback page) :-) Gandydancer (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That is professionally done. Love that C word. petrarchan47tc 18:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Here's a direct link for your convenience. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems so. The thing is, if the preponderance of world opinion backed by reliable sources portrays Snowden-as-hero, then that is what WP:NPOV dictates our encyclopedic coverage should be. If Snowden-as-criminal is the minority point-of-view, it actually does a disservice to NPOV to treat it as an opinion with equal weight. This is no different from tamping down the birthers who feel their particular conspiracy theories should be given prominence in the Obama article. Doesn't work that way, however. Tarc (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What Tarc said. petrarchan47tc 19:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I saved it because I think it applies to the BP article as well. What with the BP oil spill (as it is called worldwide, not DWH oil spill) being recognized worldwide as an unprecedented disaster how can anyone even consider that the article contain less coverage than either the Prudhoe Bay or the Texas fire sections? And to have the come-back argument be that well that means they they need to be cut back is very disturbing. I'm waiting to see if Core returns, if not I will do more work on the health section. Gandydancer (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It also applies to the current situation at March Against Monsanto talk... I really don't know how people can sleep at night after spending time on wikipedia protecting the reputations of giant corporations, making inane arguments and working in teams. Of course the 2 paragraph limit in BP oil spill is inane, and of course to argue that other similar sections be trimmed to justify is equally so. Whether the articles in question ever reflect what sources say rather than what PR teams want said is one question, but the editors who support this activity have ruined their reputation as honest brokers forever. And you can easily see the same activity with the same POV at other articles, for instance see the crossover between BP commenters and March Against Monsanto. Same inane arguments, same lack of interest in building the article, in referring to RS, and same bullshit RfCs by the same exact people! petrarchan47tc 20:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The thing that surprised me the most at the BP article was Slim's position. I was ready to accept the RfC outcome even though I strongly disagreed with it, and I thought that Slim's suggested spill section would next have a healthy discussion. BTW, I really did have a good chuckle at the suggestion by one editor, an editor that I usually have little in common with by the way, that the next heated discussion would be about how long the two paragraphs would be because he should have been right!. But rather than discuss my suggestions she just brushed them off and later called similar comments "bitching". But I do believe that even confined to two paras the info could have been squished in. Not that it would be using anything even close to good writing practices, but at least there. The paras could be fixed at a later date.

My fears for a corporate ALEC-like takeover of WP remain strong. Hell, as low level as I am here, I could tell them how to do it: Study a bunch of editors that have posted on corporate article noting their connections to "Christian beliefs", patriotism, Libertarianism, etc., and send them emails using their special leanings. Make them feel that they are part of a select group that will save Wikipedia from blah, blah, blah. In an ALEC-like way offer talking points and suggest articles that need their attention. Or if that idea is not workable, just fucking train a bunch of editors to edit ALEC's goals into Wikipedia. Just one, two, or three editors can often write the article. With more than than that, it is almost certain that heavy bias is possible or even certain. Gandydancer (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You're the second person in two days to mention an ALEC-like takeover. Hmmmm. You, by the way, should not be low level here. It would be a much better place were you not. petrarchan47tc 00:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom

The article looks so much better with your input. Good luck with the gallery. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

A belated thanks. I was waiting on a return note till when I was done, but ran into a little problem that I hope to work on. The major source that the article is using is a union site and of course Randolf is a huge union hero. In my research I came to suspect that MLK actually was the one who first planned the march and not Randolf. So I need to do a little further reading. It's always good to hear from you Buster. Gandydancer (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Information for Prudhoe Bay oil spill article

Gandydancer, as it looks like you are busy at the moment, I wanted to let you know that I will look elsewhere for someone to review my request on the Prudhoe Bay oil spill article. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Chevron

Gandy, as suggested I looked at Chevron. There doesn't appear to be any existing controversy on the talk page that I can detect. Have I missed anything? Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Origins of the blues, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shout (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to mention that I am sorry to trouble you with this -- I am unhappy that it came to this. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

what i was talking about

Hi Gandydancer

Responding to your request at the ANI.

I want to emphasize that I introduced this only to provide context for what I am complaining about with regard to User:Petrarchan47 - namely going around to other editors and trying to recreate what you all had here(!) and at other Talk pages with respect to BP, but only now with respect to GMOs - trying to build a community, a "loosely organized coaltion", supporting each other and discussing article content on users' Talk pages. Only now, trying to build that with respect to people opposed to GMOs. We are all creatures of habit. I imagine if felt good to have this with regard to BP, and it seems only nature for Petrarchan to try to rebuilt it. But it was kind of messed up with regard to the BP stuff, and it is outright canvassing to try to purposefully build it.

Here is what I wrote in the ANI: ---

The BP article was very hard, very charged, and I think is the root of a lot of this McCarthyism that User:Petrarchan47 is engaging in.

In a discussion on the BP Talk page, Petrarchan actually proposed that forming "an organized team somewhat like CREWE, even if more loosely organized and with few members, is actually a good idea. If Wiki editors are now seriously being asked to do what we are doing at this page, we need to take a moment and reflect on what that really means. We are up against a PR department of one of the most powerful, wealthy companies in the world. And they are not about to stop caring A LOT about what this page says. They have loyal editors here who seem much more organized and less emotional than those of us interesting in removing spin. If that doesn't change, nothing will change with regard to the POV in the article" - which comment you can see here.

I believe that this is what Petrachan has been doing recently -- namely, convinced that a cabal is controlling the GM articles, he/she has been canvassing to try to "loosely organize" a group to "fight back", as Petrarchan, User:Gandydancer, User:Coretheapple, and User talk:Buster7 did in working on the BP article (which you can see if you review their user Talk pages - they constantly encouraged one another and discussed what was going on in the BP article in their Talk pages. User:Binksternet was peripherally involved in that. And in the battleground that the BP article had become, and how hard it was, I understood that. I also found it disturbing with regard to canvassing and organizing out of sight of the article's Talk page, but I was already walking away from the BP article so I said and did nothing. I am, however, deeply engaged in the GM suite of articles and committed to their excellence, and I am calling Petrarchan out for canvassing and personal attacks for this behavior now. I don't even know if it is intentional (as in conscious) as much as we are all creatures of habit. But the behavior is no good.

• I will expand on what you said at ANI:

With respect to User:Petrarchan47, this goes back to editing I did on the BP article and his/her frustration in general with the terrible situation that developed in that article. If editors are not familiar with this article, some brief background. There is an employee of BP named Arturo who works on that article, in excellent compliance with Wikipedia's policies - posts suggestions on Talk, never edits, discusses politely. Two camps of editors arose on that page - one that wanted the article to remain tightly focused on BP and its business; another that wanted to include expanded content on environmental, legal and political issues (oil spills including Deep Water Horizon and all the issues around that; safety violations, trading scandals, greenwashing, etc). Things got very ugly there and for a long time a group of corporate-oriented editors had the article in a fairly ugly stranglehold leading to a lot of anger and frustration. This really broke out when an article was published claiming (wrongly) that BP was re-writing its wikipedia article. In any case, I helped break that open (see here and a group of editors, including User: Gandydancer who had been working virtually alone for a long time, User:Petrarchan47 who had been involved in the past and came back after the article published, and others, started adding lots of content. When I felt they went too far and resisted, I became an enemy to them and User:Petrarchan47 became so negative toward me, personally, that I just left the page. Ever since, User:Petrarchan47 has been accusing me of being a shill.

The BP article was very hard, very charged, and I think is the root of a lot of this McCarthyism that User:Petrarchan47 is engaging in.

• You also said:

There as an ugly discussion of edits I made in the BP article on the Talk page of an administrator, User:SlimVirgin, made without notifying me, which you can see in the deleted entry here - SlimVirgin deleted it after I called it to her attention here.

It continued anyway, here (I am the "a certain editor who materialized recently and held himself out as a 'mediator'", who is negatively characterized) and here (where Petrarchan says I "deserved the 'shill' remark") - again without notifying me.

Also this groundless complaint against me by Petrarchan to Slimvirgin, which was replied to by SV here.

• And:

That is all the past stuff. The more recent stuff is more disturbing to me, as I mentioned above, because now Petrarchan appears to be trying to round up another coalition to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS again, now on pages I am committed to.

• And closing with this:

Anyway, I freaking hated doing this. Horrible, unproductive waste of my time. But again, this McCarthyism - this constant making of accusations and personal attacks on Talk pages has got to stop. Thanks for your patience. I know I am out of patience. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• I will add my comments as well:

This the second time that my Wikipedia reputation has been called into question, and I don't like it. A few days ago in a section on BP discussion on Jimbo's page, an editor made several accusations and when I asked for evidence, none was brought forward. Now again I'm asking for evidence that I am part of "a group to fight back [as I] did in working on the BP article (which you can see if you review their user Talk pages - they constantly encouraged one another and discussed what was going on in the BP article in their Talk pages)" which you found to be "disturbing with regard to canvassing and organizing out of sight of the article's Talk page". Please show evidence of this from my talk page. Thanks. 14:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer. Your question deserves a response, and I will do so on your Talk page and after I do, I will provide a link to that here. As I wrote above, I only wrote about the BP stuff as context for Petrarchan's current behavior with regard to GM articles - as Tryptofish notes below, BP is not the focus of this ANI.Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

As you will, however I find it ironic that Petrarchan is being discussed here because you and some other editors believe that s/he is guilty of accusing some editors of misconduct, and yet you have accused me of being part of a group that has been "canvassing and organizing out of sight of the article's Talk page" to bias the BP article to our POV, and yet you refuse to publicly provide information to back your accusations on the grounds that it is not the focus of this ANI. I only wish you would have thought of that before you brought my name here, because if it is not retracted it will undoubtedly leave doubt in the minds of many as whether or not I am a trustworthy editor. Gandydancer (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• And:

I would have liked to been able to clear my name of any wrongdoing. I certainly did no "canvassing and organizing" to slant the BP article. If Jytdog felt that my behavior was going against Wikipedia principles he should have said so at the time, rather than bring it up all these months later when I am not able to answer to his accusations. Gandydancer (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I responded to your request, probably too quickly. Link is here. Again my intention was not to say you did anything wrong and I sorry for upsetting you. Jytdog (talk) 05:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

--

You asked for examples.

Some of them are easy to see above (I have looked only here and not gone to others' pages since you are the one asking):

Here you resisted it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gandydancer#BP

• I resisted "it"? I have no idea what you are getting at here.

Here is one of the earlier extended conversations on COI editing - nothing too nasty here (in fact you said something kind about me, thanks) but there is some elements of the "how do we coordinate against declared corporate reps and editors who you all see as cooperating too well with them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gandydancer#Your_note

• I have no idea why you believe that something shady is going on in that discussion. It would take a lot of imagination indeed to turn that conversation on paid editing into anything even close to a plan to bias the BP article.

Here i joined in, when i was helped break open the BP article - I was overtly trying to rally you here, I admit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gandydancer#BP_-culture_of_editing

• In the first place, you were not the one to "break open the BP article", it was the news article that did that. As for your above edit, you said:

I mentioned to Core on his/her page that it seems to me that a set of editors there has evolved a set of tactics, marginally within the bounds of wikipedia policy but sometimes out of it, to prevent the addition of negative information about BP. I am not saying it is intentional - many cultures just evolve unthinkingly -- but the patterns are there to see. The quick delete, the constant demands they make on people with ideas for content (especially demands that similar content be added to other articles - which is really crazy), the authoritative and sometimes condescending attitude, the endless "not good enough" to proposed content - all this keeps the page frozen and is very unwikipedia. And I have watched your interactions on Talk -- in good faith, you are trying to meet all these crazy demands and trying to please them. They are not playing by the same rules nor with the same goal of actually trying to create new content and improve the article; they are just interfering with your effort to do it.

You then give me advice on how to edit suggesting that I just add to the article rather than first look for consensus on the talk page. All in all, I'd say that this edit of yours comes closer to the behind the scenes planning that you accuse me and Buster, Core, and Petrarchan of. Besides that fact, that while not mentioned by name, you refer to Beagle as one of "a set of editors there has evolved a set of tactics, marginally within the bounds of wikipedia policy but sometimes out of it."

here nycjosh, who had accused me of whitewashing on some forked off article from BP, came and complained about whitewashers to you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gandydancer#Retaining_a_Quality_Editor

• Is there something wrong with what Josh said, and what does this have to do with the cabal effort to bias the BP article?

here is a "shill" conversation about me, with the regular gang of Petrarchan, Coretheapple, and you (and peripherally, binkter) that still irks me - this probably best exemplifies the "loosely coordinated coalition" I mentioned way above, where a user's Talk page is really used to strategize about how to deal with what went in an article's Talk page and complain about other editors. Petra discusses offline communications with Delicious Carbuncle where it is clarified that DC was referring to me as a "shill" and not you and wanted to be sure your feelings weren't hurt, and you say that I make your blood run cold, like Ayn Rand does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gandydancer#Your_story_is_requested

• What on earth are you talking about? There is no strategy session going on here. This section is almost completely about the Violet Blue article re the BP article and a discussion of paid editing. Your suggestion that I not wait for consensus when editing the article comes a lot closer to "strategy" than anything discussed here--unless you believe that there is a Wikipedia policy against discussing paid editing. The only thing that I would change of what I said was to say that DC makes my blood run cold. I was angry and frustrated. I don't know much about him but it is actually my impression that he's a pretty decent guy that sometimes does not get his wording just right--something we all do from time to time.

here is more of same... you and Petrarchan by now have a comfortable habit of negatively discussing editors with whom you disagree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gandydancer#Some_people_are_so_predictable.2C_aren.27t_they.3F

• This is just preposterous. Is there some reason that I should not note that the same person that called me a BP-POV Pusher had recently said to me "That comment rather implies that you have a personal, negative interest in Cracker Barrel" when I noted that if there was enough room in the Cracker Barrel article to include their menu which featured Southern specialties, including biscuits, fried chicken and catfish, the lovely decor, hours, and so on, there must surely be room to include the fact that according to the US DOJ they had been treating their black customers in a way that most of us thought went out decades ago.

another http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gandydancer#lol

• Surely you don't consider Petrarchan's share of a LOL with me as part of a dark plan to bias the BP article?

here is another one on BP-related stuff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gandydancer#Health_consequences_of_the_Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill

• How can you possibly call these edits backroom attempts to bias the BP article? I did a rewrite of the DWH spill health effects section and asked for help. Core offered help in finding sources. What can be wrong with that?

more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gandydancer#Corexit

• Same here. Petrarchan has worked on Corexit information and offered it here.

Those are examples of what I mean. There are these dark complaints about "paid editors" or POV-pushers or what ever you want to call them coordinating with one another to influence articles.. you all were doing the same thing but with your POV on BP. Like I wrote above, I see how this evolved and why - the BP article was a nightmare (maybe still is, I don't know)... but Petrachan seems to be trying to build this with anti-GMO people, as I showed in the links in the ANI.

Again, this was peripheral to the point of ANI, which is where Petrarchan has taken this. Not where you have taken it. I do not see you going around making charges of COI editing and trying to rally people around that. I am sorry for upsetting you - not my intention. I thought you were well aware of what you all were doing here. Jytdog (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea as to whether or not Petrarchan "seems to be trying to build this [coordinating with one another to influence articles] with anti-GMO people" since I don't follow her around. But, she sure was not doing it here and I strongly doubt that she's doing it anywhere else. As for "dark complaints" about paid editors, there are no dark complaints here. We all spoke right out about our fears of where paid editing may lead, as have many other Wikipedians. The only thing that alarms me is that you find that talk page discussion about paid editing needs to be exposed and that it suggests that editors that engage in it should be under suspect. Gandydancer (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

And here is more - again, in my experience on Wikipedia, what you all have done - a "loosely organized team" consistently having extensive discussions of content and other editors away from article Talk pages, is rare.. and as I mentioned, the discussions of me, without notifying me, have made me uncomfortable in the past, and have made me uncomfortable on behalf of other editors who have been the target of your discussions. And when it happened on SlimVirgin's Talk page and I notified her, she removed the content. I don't know that it is against policy per se... but it is bad Wikipedia etiquette to discuss editors without notifying them (much less ripping on them). As I said, I understand how the coalition and its off-article discussions naturally evolved around BP and have not objected to it, and am not actually objecting to it now in any formal way -- what I have objected to is Petrarchan's actively canvassing to form something like this with regard to the GM articles.

Just today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Petrarchan47#Cabal.3F_Or_just_like-minded.3F (note - P has asked me not to make comments on her Talk page, so I cannot and will not respond there.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Petrarchan47#Health_consequences_article

This discussion

Those are a few more... Jytdog (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

A few more what? Don't bring your complaints about Petrarchan here and if you have complaints about Buster, bring them to his talk page, not mine. Perhaps you need to go to MastCell's page and complain as well. It seems that they are discussing articles and editors in a dark cabal-like manner and not notifying editors about the discussion [23] Gandydancer (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you mean by "Besides that fact, that while not mentioned by name, you refer to Beagle as one of "a set of editors there has evolved a set of tactics, marginally within the bounds of wikipedia policy but sometimes out of it." Which "a set of tactics" I was evolved which is "marginally within the bounds of wikipedia policy but sometimes out of it"? Thank you in advance for your explanation. Beagel (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be here: [24] Beagle, I want you to know that over the years I have grown to respect your editing even though we are far apart in our positions. A long time ago I even sent you an email to say as much--not exactly Wikilove, mind you, but some sort of an olive branch anyway--but you didn't return my email. If you want me to strike my comments here, I would be glad to do so. Gandydancer (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I am still not sure exactly what issue you are referring but probably it was the thread where Prudhoe Bay was mentioned. I may confirm that my position referred in that thread is not any kind of tactics but my overall understanding how articles should be organized in Wikipedia. I know that we have different understandings about this issue, so I don't think we should re-open this discussion again (at least here).

For some reasons, I never received your e-mail. Notwithstanding this, your olive branch is appreciated and accepted. Beagel (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You'd think that I would have learned by now to never use sarcasm because it's sure to be misunderstood. When I made a reference to MastCell's talk page, it was not my intent to suggest that I believed that he and the editors on his page were taking part in a "dark cabel-like manner" discussion, but to show that there is nothing inappropriate about editors discussing an article on each others talk pages. I used MastCell as an example because I have for years considered him as the best of the best of Wikipedia editors. Gandydancer (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gandy. It's unclear to me if you only wanted the opportunity to respond/refute, or if you are interested in discussing. I looked at all the questions you asked above, and it appeared to me that they are rhetorical. I have already bothered you a lot (for which I again apologize) and don't want to continue if you have no wish to. But in case some of those questions are real questions and/or you have been awaiting a response from me, please let me know. Otherwise I will let this be. My apologies again for discussing this BP stuff as background to my actual concerns at the ANI. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited March Against Monsanto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Taylor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Cupcake

Hello, I just wanted to say that while you feel this should be included, you really should follow WP:BRD and discuss the reasons for its inclusion on the talk page instead of simply reverting me. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course it could also be said that you should have started a discussion rather than just revert that edit done by an established editor as well. The article is about cupcakes after all, and there is hardly a reason that a cake historian would try to use his blog space to mislead the readers as say a political blog might. I found the blog to have a great deal of interesting information and planned to use it to add info re crimped paper cups and queen cakes, but I have no desire to argue about it as I just did re whether or not the fact that every site with pictures of cupcakes shows them almost all with frosting is not good enough to say that they are commonly frosted. There are a lot of things worth arguing about, but this is not one of them. I have reverted my edit and I'm going to take that page off my watch list and be done with it. Gandydancer (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting that. While the blog is by an author with a respected history it is still a personal blog. Also, the added source was incorrectly cited: the claim put into the article said Nutt invented the cupcake, except the source states that Nutt simply used a paper liner when baking cakes. It is not stated that they were cupcakes, but that he used paper as a type of non-stick lining to more easily remove cakes from their baking pans. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you did not even read the information at the source that was provided. If you think that you know more than what Ivan Day writes on his blog, please go right ahead and object and delete every time he is used as a reference. I will have none of this idiotic nitpicking, nor do I have any desire to argue about it. Perhaps one day when I am caught up on the other work that I am doing, and have the patience, I will get back to it.

Ivan has an international reputation for his research on British and European culinary history. As well as a scholar, broadcaster and writer, he is also a gifted professional cook and confectioner. He is noted particularly for his re-creations of meals and table settings. His work has been exhibited in many museums, including the Paul Getty Research Institute, Philadelphia Museum of Art, the Museum of London, Fairfax House, the Bowes Museum and the Rothschild Collection.

Gandydancer (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I can not disagree with his bona fides and it appears to be more of a professional blog than personal, and it actually is fine. But did you notice that the claim being made is not supported in the source cited, as I stated? Look at the section on Nutt and you will see it does not talk about cupcakes, it talks about pan liners. Also, please don't get so exasperated. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

BP revert

Thanks for the bold move of reverting the 8/31 edit to the first sentence. I hope that the other editors at the afrticle realize that you were only returning the article to a status quo. One that a new beginning could start from. I also hope that most editors will acknowledge that discussion must proceed change if we are to work toward GA status.```Buster Seven Talk 22:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Criticism of the Food and Drug Administration, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Merck (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to acknowledge and thank you for your comment on my page. It is nice to know that someone notices things that I do around here. :)

(BTW if you want to move this to my talk page go ahead; I'm not sure what your personal policy is in this area.)331dot (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Gandydancer. I see that you added the new map to the Prudhoe Bay oil spill article and made some edits in response to my suggestions. I appreciate you doing this. I have made a note on the talk page noting what you did so if anyone comes across the message they'll know what has been done. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pullman porter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great Northern Railway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

survivor/victim

i'm doing the best i can. the initial changes had an edit summary that i acknowledged i was knee-jerk-y about, because i found its characterization offensive. I've been reading, and most of all trying to foster more discussion than just the two editors initially involved. I'm sorry that I have come off as insensitive or obstructionist or under-knowledgable. I am doing the best I can. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 13:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the note. I really appreciate it. I am a retired health-care professional and I have worked with victims of rape. The misunderstanding re the term is very understandable as the term "survivor" is a recent term that is used in woman's issues discussions to get rid of the term "victim" which suggests helplessness. When referring to rape, the term is sometimes used when discussing rape in general, such as in broad discussions or in long-term issues. But it would, and should, be confined to specific discussions and not used, for instance, in our article as the term of choice. Gandydancer (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ely, Minnesota, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Voyageur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If you're looking for something fun...

This discussion about a medicine-related student project is looking for some mentors on topics that might interest you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Waid--thanks and sorry to take so long to reply. I noticed one of the students note on the breastfeeding page and have been trying to find time to comment but my time has been very short--it is right in the middle of Roundup Time for gardeners right now and my house is full of produce that must be processed and "put up". Plus six little puppies. With time so short I am getting very cranky over some of the articles I watch--Rainbow for instance. I don't like it when this place makes me feel so frustrated as happens when I don't have the time to not only work on stuff I like but must find time to keep my watched articles in good shape. Waid, you get so much done here--I just marvel at how you manage it all! Anyway, thanks for the note. Gandydancer (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia could rainbows—rainbows!—become a source of frustration and depression. Hang in there, and good luck with the puppies. MastCell ^Talk 17:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

How is this a shade different than racism or sexism?

This kind of personal attack is just so hurtful.17:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Subject of section is retracted and my apologies for writing it. Content, I stand by. You are continually calling me a bad person, and a bad Wikipedian, because I have ~some~ different viewpoints than you. I value the wikipedia project a lot - its voluntariness, its effort to be a great source of valid information, and its effort to do that in a community of volunteers - one of the most insanely ambitious goals ever. I love this. These attacks you keep making on my integrity are without basis in reality and more importantly undermine the community vision. And they hurt. I wish you would just stop. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog it is absolutely not true that I am continually calling you a "bad person". If it has happened so continually and frequently, please present a few examples as they should not be hard to find. Gandydancer (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry you cannot empathize. If feels like crap to be talked about, the way you talk about me. I just have different perspectives than you, and only on some things. I have no ulterior motive. But in any case I am sorry I bothered you - it was stupid of me to say something. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, I took a few minutes to review your extensive editing for Monsanto and found that you have the highest edit count for almost all of the Wikipedia Monsanto-connected articles--in fact often as much as two or three times the number of edits than the next highest-count editor. When I point that out I am not saying you are a "bad person", I am just stating a fact and I wish you'd quit saying that I am hurting your feelings. Although I can't imagine why a person would be willing to spend hundreds of hours working on a corporate article to which they had no connection, it does not matter whether or not you are being paid to edit their articles or not--with so much input from only one editor, they are not the result of a community of volunteers. Gandydancer (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you please clarify what you mean by "for Monsanto"? Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry--not at all meant to imply that you "work" for them! I can fully accept that you have nothing at all to gain from your "work" on Monsanto-related articles and do not mean to imply otherwise. Gandydancer (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. (sorry about my errant indenting btw - i tried to fix that and edit-conflicted with you.) That clears up what you didn't mean. But what did you mean? I don't want to put words in your mouth and want to respond to what you mean. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I remain interested in hearing that, but wanted to respond to the rest of what you wrote, too. The contribution counts are clear and documented - I am the biggest contributor to several articles in the GM suite of articles. Incontrovertible. But it happens all the time that somebody is a leading contributor - for example on the Clothianidin article you have 5 times more edits than anyone else. And yes, the articles are the products of a community of volunteers. Just as I think you would say Clothianidin is. If you want to know why I have spent so much time on these articles, why don't you ask me and listen to my answer and respond, instead of assuming nasty things about me? I am interested in a real conversation and if you are talking with me in that spirit there is no harm in being direct, with respect to what you mean. If you don't want to really talk, that is of course fine.Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You haven't asked, but I have answered anyway. If you like, please see my updated user page.Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your reply. I am very far behind in my real life work and should be at it right now rather than doing anything at all on Wikipedia *groan*. As soon as I have time I will reply. BTW, as for thinking "nasty" assumptions about you--that is not accurate. I do have a few nasty assumptions about a few (very few) editors here and you're not one of them. Gandydancer (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a moment to reply. I hear you about being hammered at work (oy), and look forward to hearing from you, if you like. I am sorry for inferring that you had nasty assumptions about me and thank you for saying you don't. I don't know how to square that with the comment I linked to above, but I will reel back my inference now. We seem to be mysterious to one another.Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note again because I want you to know that I would have never brought this up right now if I knew that it was going to be discussed on Jimbo's page which I do not believe is helpful or appropriate for this discussion. Our comments on our talk pages is one thing, but Jimbo's page is another. My name has appeared there a few times and it made me feel angry and defensive. It is not at all playing fair since as much as one may hate drama, one feels that they must defend themself--which may come across as drama. All around a very bad situation, IMO. Also, just to let you know, I don't see you and some of you "pals" as having formed a cabal to override opposition and get your desired outcomes here. Not to say that there are not a few of those around, but I did not see that at the MAM article as has been suggested. Also, at some level I have felt a connection to you for a couple of reasons--for one thing it is plain to me that you are very bright, very intelligent and I like that. I think that if we were to meet in real life we would enjoy a conversation and be able to discuss in a friendly manner. For now...(now I must go back and discuss Rainbow some more) Goddammmit. Gandydancer (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for all that! I have been distressed since we fell out at BP - I had always liked our discussions and respected you, and it felt like I had permanently alienated you. So thanks. a lot. deeply. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

A bit of friendly advice: if you do not want to be thought of as a shill, don't identify as one. In other words, you have just admitted that Gandy's assessment of an unnamed Monsanto-supporting editor is a description of you, meaning that you identify with the description. It's better not to be so defensive, literally stalking unrelated talk pages for mentions of what you assume to be you, because people will wonder why, even if they hadn't any previous suspicions. As I've said to you before, there is wisdom to be had by contemplating this. A second bit of advice: pay extra attention to make sure that your edits don't seem to slant in favor of Monsanto, and as always, make sure to use RS appropriately. After the March Against Monsanto, you were very active in arguments about the turnout numbers, and brought to 3 separate Wiki articles a source to support a turnout # that is one-tenth of what RS says, using a completely bogus source. The article was printed before the protest had even begun in most places, and though I have pointed this out many times, no attempts have been made to correct the mistake... a mistake which happens to benefit Monsanto greatly, in terms of reputation (which means everything, and which is what spin doctors, for instance, aim to manipulate). petrarchan47tc 19:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Correction: I see you must have been originally named, so that was how you identified. The rest I stand by as still relevant. petrarchan47tc 19:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Your personalized intolerance for the differences we have, is just ugly. I am sorry you cannot see that. I try to ignore the digs but sometimes my feelings get the better of me. Even now you are trying to say I am a shill and you are trying to justify it. It. is. just. ugly. Please leave me alone already. Argue with my edits, all you want.Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for advising my student who is working on breastfeeding promotion. Let me know if you have any concerns or further suggestions for my work as a professor in advising her. DStrassmann (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rainbow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reflected (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The Pullman porter article

What a wonderful job you did, a pleasure to read. You focused on the value and quality of the men (and women) while not forgetting the demeaning and hidden mores of the times. If I could I would give you a second Eddy. Your friend, ```Buster Seven Talk 23:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Buster, your note really means a lot to me. I am proud to be a friend of yours. You know, there is another article that I'm interested in, but I need to buy her book. It is the mother of Emmit Till. I have a very deep appreciation for what the African American has done for America. Gandydancer (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I actually would like to echo that sentiment. It's a very informative article. Does need a bit more heft in the lead section, though, to summarize how the porters had such a role in the civil rights movement. Coretheapple (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh Gandy I just wanted to make one point. You say that the Pullman porters served the railroads through the sixties. But actually they served the railroads somewhat longer than that. I recall seeing them on the old Broadway Limited between New York and Chicago in the 1970s, when you could get a cheap sleeping accomodation called the "Slumbercoach" at a reasonable price. The porters were still taking care of the sleeping cars at that time. I realize this is original research but I'm sure there must be good sources for their demise. Coretheapple (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have some old railroad books around somewhere. More maps and engines and stuff, but maybe there's a mention of when the porter trade stopped. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

That would be great if you'd check your books. See if you've got anything on Gandy dancers too. I think the confusion is that the Pullman porters were the first, but not the last porters. Even during the years that Pullman was using black men, the other lines used them exclusively as well when they saw how well it was working out. It may be that in the 60s either Pullman went out of business or they quit using black men exclusively. BTW, one of my treasured memories is a train trip from Mpls. to Oregon in the 70s and we had a black porter--I'll tell about it when I have time. Gandydancer (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. Were the sleeping-car porters you and I saw in the 1970s considered Pullman porters? Coretheapple (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No, they were porters, not specifically Pullman porters. This could be spelled out more plainly in the article if you feel that it's important. The "porters" that I met in the 70s actually worked for food service. There were no sleeping cars in the train--we slept in our seats. Or perhaps there were, but we could not have afforded that. Though I actually did once sleep in a sleeping car. When I was four "Daddy" was shipped out and we took the train with "Mama" to stay at our grandparent's home in Minnesota till the war was over. I can remember Mama sleeping in the lower birth and my sister and I in the upper birth. It was so exciting! I remember hundreds of people getting on and off the train--I had never been around crowds before. And I remember "petting" the fur coats that some of the ladies wore and how they smiled, "oh isn't that cute" smiles.

Buster, knowing what a tender-hearted person you are, I think you will enjoy this story written by my granddaughter Helena Rose. It was on Facebook today and is here: [25] Gandydancer (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Gandy, I did very much enjoy your granddaughters prose. I checked the books I have and they are ALL about railroad equipment, maps, etc. No mention of Pullman Porters. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's an interesting article on the Pullman Porters.[26] I'll see what else I can find. Coretheapple (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

revisiting the monsanto mess

hey i just thought you might want to check out this thread [27] at Jimbo's talk page. Unfortunately I'm not on wp regularly enough to sustain the sort of vigilance that the GMO issues need here, also discouraged by the pro-gmo faction, but i still have hope that the tide will change. El duderino ^(abides) 07:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I am concerned as well. I answered on your talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Gandy, I remain very open to discussing your concerns. As you might expect, I think Jimmy was accurate in calling the sub-discussion about me on his talk page ugly. It was, and I don't understand why you would support it. I am not part of a "pro-GMO" faction; I support Wikipedia's five pillars yet keep having to deal with anti-GMO people making ugly personal attacks against me. With respect to your hunch that there are more articles about Monsanto in Wikipedia than others, I don't understand. There are probably as many or more about BP, especially if you add related articles like all those around DWH and other spills, yet you state as a fact that "So much information that we have more Monsanto-related articles than any other corp in WP." You state that as a fact... but based on what? Finally, I have never created an article in Wikipedia so I am not responsible for the number of Monsanto-related articles. In any case, I remain interested in hearing your concerns and discussing them. I am sensitive to the "New York Times test" (as in "don't do anything that you would not like to see reported in a reputable newspaper"), which is a great head check, and so I ~think~ I understand the concern you raised, but I don't think there is cause for concern with respect to any reputable news organization; I stand by my work. On the other hand, if some activist blogger wanted to do something ugly with my contribution history, there is nothing to be done about that, that I can see. There are sloppy-thinking people who do ugly things in the name of what they think is good everywhere. Jytdog (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Just want to add - I respect you as an editor; it troubles me that you would talk to others about me instead of just talking to me, and especially to editors who make ugly attacks against me. This is really fester-y; I hope you will talk to me.Jytdog (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, this is nothing short of harassment. You have no idea why Jimbo made that comment, but you are now twisting it to mean that you have the support of the co-founder, and that all accusations made against you on that thread should be ignored, and their authors shunned. I am glad you will not visit Gandy's talk page anymore. petrarchan47tc 20:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Petrar. You and I don't agree with everything either, but you are always welcome on my talk page and I respect your views. As for anything that Jimbo or "The Foundation" says or thinks, I never have been one to respect authority, and in fact I am old enough to have actually have worn the 70s "Question Authority" T-shirt. I have never seen it to fail that those in the upper circle of any group start to lose touch with the reality of things that are so obvious to those who have not yet been warped by the "corporate mentality"...for lack of a better way to put it in only a few words. In my case it was hospital administrators, though I was part of the group just under the top administration. THe people at the top seemed to have lost touch with reality and instead trusted what seemed to be reality on paper with studies, goals, etc. Every word that Jtydog says sounds just like so much like like something that I heard for so many years...and just got so goddamn sick of hearing...I just don't want to hear any more of it. Though I will say, our discussion did make me do a whiplash when I thought about the possibility of having only one person having written all of BPs articles, as has been done for Monsanto. So if the Foundation and Jimbo supports that, it is food for thought. Gandydancer (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Profound, Gandy. I am wanting to paste this to my home page. I'm glad to hear you would be open to more communication, there are some things that I'd like to discuss with you. (Actually the reason I stopped by today in the first place is that I'd very much like to revisit soon our discussion of Corexit and oil spill articles. Turns out, our needs for sourcing may have been solved by simply giving it time.). Big hug, petrarchan47tc 23:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the new info. I found the study that was mentioned and added that information to the health article. The main spill article health section really needs to be redone...it is hard to find the energy. BTW, I met Dahr Jamail. Maybe you remember when MoveOn.org had the idea for candlelight protests against the Iraq war? A friend and I organized one and then my daughter and I organized a regional antiwar group. We did a lot of different stuff, including having him come and give a talk. But the best thing we did was to have Helen Thomas come and talk. What a grand lady she was...we only had a place big enough for a few hundred people and could only pay her plane fare and yet she came and spoke...she was over 80 at the time and was still there when I left, exhausted. For now, Gandydancer (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh! I just saw this - how absolutely incredible! I wish I had been there too. Happy Christmas to you, Gandy. petrarchan47tc 04:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, I really do grow weary of your accusations. I don't see how you can suggest that I should just talk to you and not others who you may feel are attacking you. Also, please note that I did not comment on Jimbo's page to express support for El Duderino's comments. IMO, Jimbo's page is not a good place to attempt to settle such matters and if you remember I said the same thing when Petrarchan put your name on Jimbo's page. OTOH, it seems that you have no concerns about doing the same. Just grabbing something from above when we discussed this, I'll copy this here:

As you will, however I find it ironic that Petrarchan is being discussed here because you and some other editors believe that s/he is guilty of accusing some editors of misconduct, and yet you have accused me of being part of a group that has been "canvassing and organizing out of sight of the article's Talk page" to bias the BP article to our POV, and yet you refuse to publicly provide information to back your accusations on the grounds that it is not the focus of this ANI. I only wish you would have thought of that before you brought my name here, because if it is not retracted it will undoubtedly leave doubt in the minds of many as whether or not I am a trustworthy editor. Gandydancer (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

But asking you to show evidence, you came up with nothing.

As for my concern re the fact that you have practically written the Monsanto articles, I am not and I have never accused you of anything. If you and the WP foundation are not concerned, that's that. Re the number of Monsanto articles compared to BP--I don't really know...I did not mean my quick note to be necessarily fully accurate as that was not what I was getting at. However, I will say, your comparison to BP did make me feel quite startled to try to think of them all having the same editor. Gandydancer (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gandy, the basic principle of all policies and guidelines concerning editor behavior, is that if you have a concern, you always talk to the editor about whom you are concerned first; then you take it to a board. If you find some policy or guideline about behavior that doesn't say that, I would be interested to see it. That is what I am asking you to do. The heart of those policies and guidelines is that we are all equal, all human, and we come together as a community to create Wikipedia; we try to work things out directly and if that fails, we get help. The thing I respect the most about you as an editor is the way you really talk things through in Talk pages; you are willing and able to really listen to people who think differently, willing and able to change your mind and to learn, and really clear and civil in stating what you want and what you think. This is the very essence of how we should all be when we work here (and everywhere else, for that matter). It is why I take the time to come here and ask you to talk to me, to not "other" me. Real dialogue with you is possible. (btw, I acknowledge again, and have acknowledged before, that bringing up the BP stuff in the context of the ANI was stupid and foolish. I apologize again for doing so. In our earlier interaction my sense was that you were upset and primarily looking for an apology, and did not want to talk about the concerns that I had (inappropriately stated) so I did not push it then so as to not excacerbate my mistake. I just apologized and backed off. I note, however, that several times prior to that, I did come to your talk page and ask you to not do it... I did follow what I am saying here. If at some point you are open to hearing my concerns about old stuff I would be happy to go into them more... but it is basically the same thing that prompted me to write this time)Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I have no desire at all to talk about my "concerns" with you. You just won't seem to accept that it is perfectly fine for me to disagree with you and yet not want to have extended conversations in which I assume you would attempt to show me how wrong I am. Nobody else here is insisting that I discuss differences with them, and I disagree with every person that I have come to know about certain things. Nor do I go to them and insist on discussions.

You said: the basic principle of all policies and guidelines concerning editor behavior, is that if you have a concern, you always talk to the editor about whom you are concerned first; then you take it to a board. If you find some policy or guideline about behavior that doesn't say that, I would be interested to see it. That is what I am asking you to do.

I've never read all of the policies and I've never taken anyone to a board. Common sense generally seems to work quite well. If you really do believe that I am abusing some sort of policy, I guess that it's up to you to take it to some sort of board. I'm certainly not interested as I consider all of this just a total waste of my time. Gandydancer (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to answer; I have no desire to waste your time and will not ask again. Have a great day. Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Appendicitis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calculi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Cholera ping

Hey ... I see you at work on Cholera. I keep promising Mike Christie I'll get on Wikipedia:ENI#Cholera, but I don't want to get in your way, and I'm not sure if you've addressed some of it already. Pls ping me when you're done and I can go have a look? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

cholera plagiarism

This edit is cut-and-pasted from this source. Even if public domain, this is still plagiarism (see WP:PLAGIARISM). Please be more careful to include cut-and-paste text in quotes or to rephrase in your own words (I am aware that you have done this on other articles). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

No need to create such drama over my mistake. Yes, I was mistaken and thought that the CDC did not need to be attributed, but it hardly warranted a "please be more careful" article note and a note on my page as well. Even if I were a slow learner, which I am not, a correction with an explanation in the edit summary would have made it much more simple for all concerned. Gandydancer (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the CDC bit is okay as it is public domain which does not require attribution and you did reference it to them. The second bit per here [28] however is a greater concern. The article that it was taken from is under a CC BY NC SA license which is not compatible with Wikipedia. Always best to paraphrase all content no matter what source you take it from. This simply prevents any confusion and most stuff requires simplification of language anyway. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Additionally if one always uses secondary source it is helpful. There are a number of textbooks on google books that discusses. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Walmart

I've started to pay attention to the many Walmart articles. Specifically the Family wealth mentions and making sure they are kept up-to-date. Heck, just a few days ago there was $40 Billion dollars missing. A billion here, a billion there...pretty soon you're talkin' about some real money! While investigating, I ran across this...[29]...which reminded me so much of what we are afraid of regarding paid advocates/editors/operatives. Love your user page. Hope you had a splendid Thanksgiving. TRA!```Buster Seven Talk 20:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Buster, yes, we had a nice Thanksgiving but it was hard not to feel a little guilty what with so much hardship for others in the world--my biggest hardship was that for the first time in many years we didn't have any Minnesota wild rice on hand for our meal. I'll look at Wallmart but lately I've been having trouble with burnout. I keep hoping that my enjoyment in editing will return soon... Gandydancer (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Same re editing burnout. No fun anymore. petrarchan47tc 04:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Tough

Gandy,

Just wanted to stop by and say hi, and that this editing stuff can be tough. Right now it seems every page I'm working on has or has recently had major contention. Things just don't seem smooth and easy right now. I wish that wasn't the case. But especially, I hope you know that none of this is personal, and I do intend to help with the health article. I am extremely frustrated right now by how the MEDRS is being used, I think overly used to keep certain information out of the Pedia. It wasn't always this hard to add information from good sources like Al Jazeera. I don't know what to say about this, I'm just a bit baffled right now, and trying to learn about it. petrarchan47tc 04:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Petrar, Yes, I've been following your problems and I can see that you are having a hard time. You didn't ask for advice, but I'm going to give it anyway. You are such a good editor and so willing to work so hard for the 'pedia and I worry that you will get so frustrated that you quit. Sometimes a person just has to drop away from an article and IMO you need to drop away from the medical mj article. Perhaps when the dust has settled you can, using acceptable MEDRS sourcing, add something that you feel is important, if you are ready to have it deleted as well. Keep in mind that medical reviews, including the Cochrane reviews, do not need to reveal who did the studies that they are reviewing, which IMO is the most important determinate of a study's findings. Gandydancer (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(friendly stalker) I agree Petra. You seem to be attracted by the "hot" articles. But, in the process, you get singed with the heat. Like Gandy advises, just step back. We have seen this before...where your edits are MISinterpreted as problematic. Continued work there will only cause you grief and we don't want that. This editing bizness should be fun. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Big hugs to you both. It does indeed appear as if I am attracted to hot articles. Either that, or attempts to spin the Pedia are more rampant than we acknowledge, and it just so happens that most/all of the pages I work on are subject to heated opinoins. I am not at all interested in editing the MMJ article within the hostile environment currently, but the subject of cannabinoids is one I have been studying for a few years, and I find it exceedingly interesting. So when I see the page attacked and witness bogus warnings such as "might cause schizophrenia" posted to the Intro by the official wiki medical-editing team, I have to speak up. I see that there is no winning against the well-connected team, and that alopathic medicine (though pharmaceuticals remain the 4th leading cause of death in the US) is considered speck-less at Wiki, as are its supporters. I note also that the Pedia has no problem allowing a tiny handful of folks, some with with stated POV's, to freely take ownership of any article they like, without question. That's not OK, but it's also not something I can affect. I can bitch and moan and try to call attention to it. I could, if I had steel intestines, argue for every little addition or change on the talk page for the next 6 months, but I'm not going to do that. What I am doing is calling in a researcher who knows the field, and perhaps it will encourage people to act with more integrity and edit with NPOV, and it will most certainly benefit the reader and anyone interested in the subject. From what they're finding lately, it's safe to say that anyone who loves female breasts should also find the research being done very exciting. petrarchan47tc 22:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

anyone who loves female breasts. Count me in! ```Buster Seven Talk 22:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought I'd catch you on that one! petrarchan47tc 23:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a pretty odd comment. Any human being is going to be interested in better cancer therapies, though the assumption in this journalism, that squirting stuff on cells in a petri dish means anything in respect of a "treatment", is all-too-typically dumb. BTW, men can get breast cancer too. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You have to get the idea out of your head right now that "they" are a bunch of folks without integrity because you are dead wrong with that...or that they have "taken ownership". They are using proper sourcing per MEDRS. If they are cherry picking you should be able to do the same to support your position. I'm done for the day, but I'll write more tomorrow. Gandydancer (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, but they are actually not always using MEDRS properly, not if it doesn't fit the narrative. None of us are always neutral, that's why I would like to see larger numbers of editors involved in the Project Medicine, and I would rather see less defending and more scrutinizing of each other (like you and I do), as a matter of course. If one small group has control over articles, there should be another group to monitor the editing. We don't have that now. petrarchan47tc 23:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

← The situation at medical cannabis is a challenging one, in particular because I think everyone involved is acting with integrity and according to what they view as the betterment of the encyclopedia. The conflict arises because the topic area is complex and unsettled, and because people with different viewpoints naturally prioritize specific aspects of the issue over others. Consider the following statements about the relationship between cannabis use: which are true?

• There is substantial evidence of an association between cannabis use and the development of schizophrenia.
• The dose-dependent aspect of the relationship suggests that cannabis use might be causal.
• Many experts believe that the association between cannabis use and schizophrenia is best explained by common risk factors (that is, the same risk factors that predispose to schizophrenia may predispose to cannabis use), rather than a cause-effect relationship.
• A causal relationship between cannabis use and schizophrenia has not been proven, and evidence is inconclusive at best.
• The vast majority of cannabis users do not develop schizophrenia.

The answer, at least to my knowledge, is that all of above are true. The question, then, is which truths to emphasize and to what degree. Consider even the very simple choice between "may cause schizophrenia" and "has not been proven to cause schizophrenia"—both true statements, but with very different implications and emphases.

In my personal experience, medical marijuana is neither as great as its proponents believe nor as harmful as its detractors believe. It's useful for some people, for some indications. Curiously, while I have seen medical problems related to medicinal use of marijuana, they're not the ones described in the article or fought over on the talkpage. But that's really neither here nor there. MastCell ^Talk 00:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, Harvard just came out with this: Harvard: Marijuana Doesn’t Cause Schizophrenia, study.

And: Lester Grinspoon: Clearing the Smoke: The Science of Cannabis (PBS Doc)

From the video (at 15:30): Scientists are unsure whether it causes, or simply correlates. "Dr Grinspoon was a psychiatrist and his expertise was in schizophrenia. He strongly disagrees with critics who say marijuana may trigger [Schizophrenia]. Grinspoon: 'I think that is absurd. The frequency of of schizophrenia - the world over - is about one percent. You would expect that with a drug used as often as it is, you would expect a "blip"' (ie, a rise in rate of Schizophrenia to match increased cannabis use). "It doesn't change a bit. In fact, you can find as much in the literature about how cannabis is useful to Schizophrenic patients as it is harmful"

Maybe the Medical Cannabis page could use an intermediary. Hint hint.

I worked on the Cannabis (drug) page earlier this year, after finding the page was claiming there were cases of cannabis-induced death. After a little back and forth, a nice group gathered organically to review all the literature, and making sure we were following the guidelines, we turned:

• "Deaths attributed directly to cannabis usage are infrequent but have been documented.[not MEDRS] Recorded fatalities resulting from cannabis overdose in animals are generally only after intravenous injection of hashish oil.[19]

• into this

It took about 3 months, and in the end no one got their way, really. But no one left upset. It was very solid research and hard work that resulted in thorough coverage. I think with a complex subject that is new to an editor, it helps to allow for more input from others. No one and no little group should be allowed to take ownership of articles here, but if they are, there should be another group providing oversight in case our inherent bias is making it to the articles. Some have admitted to a bias against herbal medicine, one clarified "herbology is woo". So if it is at all conceivable that this bias could affect editing (we find proof for that which we already believe), it only makes sense that oversight is needed, for any group with lots of pull on Pedia. Also, clearly a hostile environment is not one conducive to this work. Project Medicine has experts in alopathic medicine, but Wikipedia does not have a "Project Medical Cannabis" and no one well versed in herbal medicine has yet shown up, so I've invited one cannabinoid researcher to help us on the page. For researchers to be able to participate, a calm environment with levels heads is a must. The vitriol and hostility that can pop up is going to scare away any researchers I know, so as it is somewhat heated there now, I am a bit reluctant to begin.

I don't blame you for thinking some have overstated cannabis' potential. For one thing, NIDA only funds research that is looking for harmful effects, and that certianly shapes the coverage we get. I'll just leave you with one new finding: a new strain of non-THC cannabis is being grown for use in children with some very serious conditions, one of them is Dravet syndrome. For these kids, nothing was able to stop their seizures except cannabis.Check it out. petrarchan47tc 01:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, I hadn't checked the work of Project Medicine, but the safety section now has: THC, the principal psychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant, has low toxicity, the dose of THC needed to kill 50% of rodents is very high,[37] and human deaths from overdose are extremely rare.[38] Recorded fatalities resulting from cannabis overdose__________are generally only after intravenous injection of hashish oil.[38] <- Notice the missing text (highlighted above). Need I say more? petrarchan47tc 01:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added some information at Medical Cannabis talk regarding the possibility of cannabis-induced death. FWIW, Sanjay Gupta did a report on MJ for CNN. He researched for a year, he said, and wasn't able to find what Wikipedia is now claiming. He said "As much as I searched, I could not find a documented case of death from marijuana overdose." petrarchan47tc 01:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Is the so-called missing text (i.e. "in animals") actually in the source? I can only read the abstract of this source (PMID 16225128) which states: "9THC and related compounds are determined in autopsy material, although deaths by overdose of cannabis are exceptionally rare. Fatalities happen most often after intravenous injection of hashish oil." Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 02:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan, I don't think it's entirely true that NIDA funds only studies evaluating harmful effects. Glancing at the first few pages of clinicaltrials.gov, I see NIDA is funding studies of marijuana as an analgesic and vaporized marijuana as a treatment for post-spinal-injury pain, while NHLBI (a separate Institute at the NIH) is funding a study of vaporized cannabis to treat pain related to sickle-cell crises.

The issue of deaths related to marijuana is a bit more of a gray area. I don't know of any case reports of deaths caused by marijuana overdose, and the lethal dose is ridiculously high and probably virtually unachievable in humans. On the other hand, marijuana intoxication is well-described as a cause of fatal motor-vehicle accidents, and the preponderance of evidence suggests that marijuana can trigger heart attacks (e.g. Mittleman et al., 2001), although the absolute risk of the latter is probably extremely small. These risks are at least qualitatively comparable to those of alcohol (in terms of MVAs) and tobacco (in terms of potentially triggering cardiovascular events). From a public-health perspective, the costs associated with cannabis use are likely very low compared to those associated with tobacco, alcohol, and other recreational drugs (e.g. PMID 19837255, not in abstract, see full text). MastCell ^Talk 05:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of the fact that due to recent changes by Project Medicine in the name of MEDRS, Wikipedia is now claiming that humans have been shooting up hash oil, causing death? What is your view on the removal of "in animals" from the statement above? petrarchan47tc 18:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

As for increased risk for heart attack following use, we covered this in the Safety section linked above. It turns out, "this five-fold marijuana risk is a little higher than the risk for sexual intercourse, about the same as that for other types of strenuous exercise" (such as shoveling snow) SOURCE. petrarchan47tc 20:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but what about the interplay between these risks? I mean, people are probably statistically somewhat more likely to have sex after they get high. (But then I guess they're also less likely to feel motivated to go out and shovel the driveway, so maybe it's a wash). In all seriousness, I'm all for context, and for distinguishing relative risk (e.g. "fivefold increase in risk", which sounds scary) from absolute risk (which is pretty low). As usual, xkcd has useful commentary on the difference.

As for deaths, I'm not able to access the full text of PMID 16225128 (my institution's library, while extensive, doesn't carry many Polish-langauge review journals), so I can't say anything intelligent about its content. I'd be pretty shocked if people were actually shooting hash oil. It sounds pretty outlandish, and I'm not able to turn up any documentation of such deaths with a brief Google/PubMed search. Hypothetically, such a practice would be highly lethal, not because of cannabinoids themselves but because hash oil is, well, an oil—it's highly lipophilic and very poorly soluble in the bloodstream. Depending on the amount of hash oil injected, you'd likely end up with a pulmonary embolism, right-ventricular outflow obstruction (and sudden death), or a severe stroke. But that has little or nothing to do with the cannabinoids per se; the same things would happen if you injected canola oil.

Besides, cannabinoids enter the bloodstream almost immediately after inhalation—the delay in effect is related to the time they take to cross the blood-brain barrier and saturate the relevant receptors, rather than to plasma bioavailability—so I don't think there would be any point to intravenous administration in the first place. Anyhow... MastCell ^Talk 00:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4