User talk:Jytdog/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jytdog. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

George Billman

First, I am curious what attracted your attention to "my" article on George Billman. Regardless, I am thankful for the help. In one of your recent edits you removed Schwartz and Stone's names in favor of "Billman's lab". This is inaccurate - he was a post-doc at the time, so it definitely wasn't his lab. The idea was his, which is why his name is first on the paper, but it was Stone's lab. The secondary sources cited attribute the finding to Billman w/o mention of the others, so using just "Billman" would probably be OK. Alternatively, "Billman and colleagues" or similar would work. I'll leave the decision up to you since I have a COI.

As a side note, I will likely add some additional material to add at some point, as I plan to take the article to GA at some point. Would you be interested/willing to review new contributions for neutrality? Thanks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I watch the COIN page - that is how my attention was called to it. I am watching the article so will see any future contributions you make. nice tribute to your dad. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

COIN would have been my first guess. Thanks for your help. On a random note, I was reading your user page and your comments on GMOs. Strange timing because I was discussing it with my mom and said something to the effect that it wasn't much different than selective breeding and my sister got super mad about it and compared it to putting Round Up in the food. Good times. ;) If you haven't seen Farmland yet, you should check it out. It's a pretty interesting look at farming in general, and touches on the GMO issue. The argument that really convinced me was a farmer says something like "before GMOs we had to use way more pesticide" which, you know, actually are harmful if ingested. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain this revert. I do not see how it is a primary source for Billman's work. The author (Michael O'Leary) doesn't appear to have any connection to Billman and is citing the work as background for his own paper. This would seem to be exactly the same kind of source the vast majority of the article is based on, but perhaps I missed something... Rechecking, I do see the electrical disturbance wasn't attributed to Billman (my bad on that), but the rest of the findings are. I see another editor has reverted now, so I'll adjust the text accordingly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

i already discussed this on the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, I asked how you found the source that mentioned Billman by name as I thought you might have better search methods than my randomly looking through many sources. You didn't reply, so I thought you may have missed it. If you don't have any better methods, that's fine - you just seemed to find something easily (I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that you didn't spend much time on my pet topic). I very much want to do this "the right way" with the best possible sources, so obviously any tips for finding stuff is welcome. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I am unwatching. What is happening in that article is very ugly to me. I am unwatching the article. Please do not write here anymore. Jytdog (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for your opinion

User:Jytdog, would you please be so kind as to comment on the "Jews" Talk Page, section "Marx". There is currently a debate there whether or not we should include the photo of Karl Marx in the montage there.-Davidbena (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Maize

Hi Jytdog. Done. I never know when it is too much, lest we end up with sentences with refs on every word. But thanks for the wake-up call. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Management of depression

this is michaeltai95, I'm curious as to why you deleted my edit in the management of depression on the topic of ECT. The current section does not attempt to evaluate the efficacy of ECT at all, and as a summary text the absence of this is quite a serious flaw. I'm willing to shorten my edit to make it more in line with the "summary" style of wikipedia but the addition of an evaluation on ECT's effectiveness is vital in a section about ECT. Most of the other sections have evaluations of effectiveness but this does not. Michaeltai95 (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

that section is taken from the lead of the ECT article, per WP:SUMMARY. I agree that the lead of the ECT article needs to be updated with efficacy information, and then that content needs to be brought to the management of depression of article. We need to work on the ECT article first - you will see that the review you cited is already in the body of the ECT article, along with others. The picture is complicated and the efficacy section in the body needs work, and only after that, the lead can be updated. I intend to do that this evening. Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

which I did. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

False accusation of edit warring

You have falsely accused me of multiple reverts to the page conspiracy theory. I have done NO reverts on that page as the page history shows. Kindly retract your accusation. Thanking you in advance for your correction. Slade Farney (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

?

1 initial edit 16:12, 26 January 2015

1b your content reverted by another editor 16:46, 26 January 2015

2 you restored content after the other editor reverted, and added yet more 08:36, 27 January 2015

2b a different editor reverts back to before you added content 11:56, 27 January 2015

3 you add back content just on Sunstein/Vermeule that had been removed and add more on that (you didn't actually revert but this is still edit warring) and you add new content on Young 21:28, 27 January 2015

3b a third editor reverts back to before your edits 21:27, 28 January 2015

(note - updated the above with the whole series of additions and reversions by everybody, more clearly showing edit warring Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC))

Please read the record more carefully before you accuse.

2 (08:36, 27 January 2015) is a modification to my own text, as the page history and your link shows.

3 (21:28, 27 January 2015‎ ) is again, a modification to my own text, as the page history shows.

4 (20:42, 28 January 2015) is another modification to my own text, as the page history shows.

Maybe we should ask the community to judge whether these edits are "reversions."

Slade Farney (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sfarney, please actually read WP:EDITWAR - it concerns editing the article generally; it doesn't matter who initially created the content. And you were definitely adding back content after other editors had deleted it. Key thing is that you stopped, which is great. Thanks for that.Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

AndyGrump objected to citing the InfoWar.com page and removed a bunch of content with no further explanation. I reworked the deleted text and posted it without citing InfoWars. Make of that what you will, that is not a reversion and not an edit war. And now I ask you again to reconcile your special definition of "conspiracy theory" with the sentence at the top of the page. For your reference, at 13:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC) you wrote that '"conspiracy theories" ... are paranoid delusions.' Slade Farney (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to discuss the definition of "conspiracy theory" on the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Somebody using your nym just posted a message on that talk page four minutes later: "Its unclear to me what specific content we are discussing here. This is WP:NOTFORUM for general discussion, and the thread was about edit warring which has now stopped. I suggest that if there any topics raised here, about article content, that someone wants to discuss, please open a new section for it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)" Did you forget so quickly the subject under discussion? Why couldn't the "someone" be you, since you are so "happy" to discuss the definition of conspiracy theory? Edit warring is one thing, rope-a-dope is another. Deal with it, please. Slade Farney (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

SPI

Have started a SPI here about these users Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Josabeth. I am sure there are more we can add to the list. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up! Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Jerry Yang

Hi there! Just a heads up that I did (quite belatedly) follow up on our discussion about edits to Jerry Yang with a new draft of the article. If you get a chance to take a look, I'd love to hear your opinion. Thanks and happy new year! Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

COI/Medical

You recently mentioned having a very strong interest in medical subjects and in COI, so I thought I would see if a couple of my recent projects might be of interest:

If you have the time/interest to take a look, tear em apart and give me your most grueling critical review, I'd be appreciative of your time. Or if not, just let me know!

CorporateM (Talk) 18:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If you find yourself with a spare moment...

On the Fine-Tuned Universe talk page you said "using the page number field in a citation template is a fine way to do it. But my preferred way is to cite the book one time and use "ref name" for repeat references, and use the page number template ^{: <--page number-->} for the page number relevant to a specific instance of the citation. That way readers can more easily how many sources are actually used in the article." I wouldn't suppose you could point me to a page where you used that technique so I could take a look at how that's done or to an on wiki page that explains it perhaps? I've been around for ages but only started editing in earnest more recently and I know there has to be cleaner ways to do refs than how I did a couple recent ones. It's exactly the situation you mention above. It's one book cited in two places with different page numbers. Thanks! Capeo (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

sure - I just did it here: R_v_Morgentaler#Aftermath Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. I'll take a look. Thanks so much! Capeo (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion

The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises standard discretionary sanctions for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at the requests for clarification and amendment page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Finasteride

Jytdog, with all due respect, I disagree with your statement that the current finasteride article reflects due weight of the literature on sexual side effects. It currently gives complete weight to a single study. I don't know if you have personally read this study, but it is one of maybe only a few articles to make the claim that finasteride is not associated with sexual side effects of any kind. Surprisingly, the included data do not even support the claims that are made by the authors. I am afraid this article is falling prey to bullshit, in your own terminology, and would appreciated it if you would take the time to investigate this complicated issue more thoroughly since you have chosen to make edits. There are dozens of article that high quality by MEDRS standards that demonstrate causality between finasteride and sexual side effects and I will include just a few for example. The real controversy is whether finasteride can cause persisting sexual side effects as it has been established for over two decades that finasteride causes sexual side effects in a subset of its users.

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/InformationbyDrugClass/ucm299754.htm

This FDA page references both the clinical trials for Proscar and Propecia (finasteride in different dosages) and really represents the recent medical consensus on the topic. It states, " Sexual side effects were reported by patients during clinical trials, and this information was included in the Proscar and Propecia’s labels at the time of approval in 1992 and 1997, respectively. In controlled clinical trials, these side effects resolved in patients who stopped finasteride, as well as in most patients who continued therapy. In 2011, both Proscar and Propecia’s labels were revised to include erectile dysfunction that continued after drug discontinuation."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3481923/

This 2012 meta-study investigates a much larger scope of finasteride related studies than the single study currently presented in the article. It states, "A comprehensive review of a total of 73 papers on medical therapies for BPH was conducted, with a focus on the effects of different pharmacological agents on sexual function.[6] The review revealed that finasteride is infrequently associated with problems of ejaculation (2.1-7.7%), erection (4.9-15.8%), and libido (3.1-5.4%)."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4064044/

A June 2014 article (published even more recently than the currently included article) states, "Considerable evidence exists from preclinical and clinical studies, which point to significant and serious adverse effects of 5α-RIs, finasteride and dutasteride, on sexual health, vascular health, psychological health and the overall quality of life."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12639651

One of the largest double-blinded long-term studies to date (3,040 patients) showed that despite both the test/control groups having similar prior medical histories of sexual side effects, 15% of the test group reported sexual AEs versus only 7% for the placebo group.

If you take the time to review the evidence and quality of articles, you'll see there is much more evidence demonstrating a causal relationship between adverse events than the single currently quoted article.

Please let me know if you have any proposed compromises or feedback. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Doors22 (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

this conversation belongs on the article talk page, not here. I'd be happy to respond there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Am just supporting my edits on the Homosexuality page, nothing personal. If I really wanted to be confrontational I would not be waiting 24 hours to talk the edits out. I do feel strongly that the material is relevant to homosexuality, and that the proposed edits address the effects of estrogen/androgen on sexual behavior, not just intersex changes to genitalia. However, I am trying to talk things out calmly and have a constructive discussion. I did put a lot of sourcing into the writing of that section though, and strongly believe it's the majority scientific view. I'm not just going to abandon the proposed edits without discussing them first, sorry. --7157.118.25a (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

bummer. but so it is. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

SBD

Hi, Jytdog. I am likely to return to the subject of South Beach Diet soon. This note is partly to invite you to participate, partly to say OK if you can't. Based on a comment of yours from late December, I had the impression you believed I'd raised real issues regarding the quality of the article and, if so, I'd be interested to work in areas where we can find agreement. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Missing word

Courtesy call. The word "what" is missing from "....(that is chemistry, not biology) but happens when you put it into an average human body..." text in your User:Jytdog/Why MEDRS? essay. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

thanks! :) Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Genetic content

Here is a source attributing the statistical differences to the process of mestizaje (in Spanish) [1]. Regarding the claims of primary sources there are studies that directly compare Mexicans with Europeans and have found the so called mestizos to be similar to Eurpeans and different of Amerindians and Africans: [2], [3]. All this sources have been posted in the discussion before, but it has grown as much that they get lost easily. Probably is necessary to include this sources with that sentence (replacing either Chile or Costa Rica with Spain for example). I'll wait to listen your opinion in the sentence for the mestizaje. In the meantime I'm returning the genetic sentence to the lead because is too small to have it's own section. I want to hear your opinion wheter to include the studies that compare Mexicans directly with Europeans and found them similar or if we leave it as it is. Aergas (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

thanks for talking but this all belongs on the article talk page. i'd be glad to respond there! Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The improvements you made to the citations and to the sources were very needed, but you removed a lot of sourced material, and worse, material that is in the mid of a dispute (and not for very good reasons that I detail in the talk page). Please discuss before making mass removals of material thar is on dispute. I made you a proposal regarding the genetic information and you ignored it. Aergas (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Aergas

You don't need to go to WP:ANI about the sockpuppetry allegation at this time. Both Aergas and Alon12 (who we know isn't you) have been blocked for two weeks for edit-warring. I have templated Aergas stating that his allegation does raise competency issues that may need to be raised when he comes off block. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :). I responded to you over on his page. He actually opened a case at SPI on me! Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jytdog Better that, than continuing to attack me on Talk, I suppose. Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

I am very glad we are able to reach an agreement. After a vigorous discussion, while still imperfect I believe the article represents the situation reasonably and in accordance to MEDRS standards. Appreciate the willingness to discuss and I hope Formerly98 is on board as well. Doors22 (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

great! thank you too. Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Drug development

You're still supposed to copy the removed material to the talk page per WP:PRESERVE unless it's utter nonsense. As you removed the material as merely being unsourced, please try to abide by our core policies. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The section on "Problems that may justify removal" cites WP:VERIFY which says: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." If you want to add content to WP, please provide a source. If you cannot provide a source, it is WP:OR, which also must be removed and ideally never added. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a good catch, I've amended WP:V so as to properly reflect the other policy. Hopefully it sticks; I detest being drawn into policy debates when I'd much rather be writing an encyclopedia :/ -- Kendrick7^talk 03:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

you shouldn't amend policy without prior discussion on the policy's Talk page. I've reverted. Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That's kind of a WP:DICK move. I don't see the need for discussion when I'm just trying to bring existing policies into line with each other. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

ouch! Sorry to have upset you. But I would never amend a policy without discussing it first and I certainly wouldn't edit war over it, if someone reverted me WP:BRD is even more important where policy is concerned. I'd be happy to discuss that change on the policy Talk page. (I think this will boil down to that long-running tension in WP between "deletionists" and "inclusionists". I acknowledge that I fall in the former camp, generally.) Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I was a tad grumpy at the end of a long day. (Although, it strikes me as odd that we should let WP:BRD, an essay, determine how we construct policy!) I admit I'm more of an inclusionist myself, but I'll try again with more of a ninja edit. Otherwise, if I have to be drawn again into an esoteric policy debate, so be it :( -- Kendrick7^talk 02:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Your RfC at Griffin

Is there a way to date that tag, or is it already dated, and I'm just not seeing it? Atsme☯^Consult 23:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Dracone Barge

Hi Jytdog, I noticed you edit. remove unsourced content that violates WP:NOTHOWTO? In fact, I was wondering what did you remove apar from the wikilinks I added! Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! Language like "it should be noted" and "MUST" is not encyclopedic. This content is advising readers how to follow the law (and the law in one jurisdiction, without saying so, which raises issues with WP:GLOBALIZE). Wikipedia is not (see WP:NOT) many things, including a place to provide legal advice or to advise people how to do anything. The WP:NOTHOWTO section, is a subsection of NOT. Jytdog (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Shoud the sentence me removed from the article then? Lotje (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

oh yes, and it was also unsourced. Per WP:VERIFY alone the lack of sourcing makes it remove-able. The non-encyclopedic content is also reason to remove it. So the answer to your question is "yes", which is what I did. the ideas there could maybe be re-introduced to the article, with a source, and without the language that makes it advice-giving. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Banner

I spent considerable time going back through his talk page history and collecting various uncivil interactions he has had with the numerous other users, as I have referred to in my posts to ANI. I had that on a sandbox page but he was able to get it deleted, so I have had to keep it off line. Its massive and is awkwardly in reverse chronology (newer conversations first), but I can forward it to you to save some time reviewing his history up to the point that I had to stop, about late 2012. At least it will provide you with dates and issues. Just let me know how you would like to get it. This guy's negative history is so massive its hard to get anybody to go back and read it. I've screamed as loud as I can but I can't get anybody with authority to take an interest. You will need to make your presentation easy to digest. Best of luck. Trackinfo (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand why you are offering this but my interactions with Banner are limited to one article and I am focused on dealing with that. (I am very busy and to be frank I don't have time to understand the background with the two of you.) Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. Please understand, while I have brought the issue forward, its not about me and my issues with him. I'm just more of a senior editor trying to speak on behalf of all the other less experienced editors he has offended. They don't know the process of these back room discussions, so his activities continue because so few people speak up. At least you are speaking up on your one issue. Trackinfo (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

hi jyt

im usually on the wikiproject med page (you might remember me from ebola/west Africa), I was wondering if you might have a moment to look over Dyslexia im GA nominating it, I like your opinion because your honest (regardless if you've done GA reviews before or not) if it can pass you, I cant see why it wont any body else, I of course, would be in your debt thank you.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		thanks Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I was going to leave the talk page blank (put in archives), for dyslexia, so we could start over, but its fine either way. thanks.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Evaluative Diversity

Dear Jytdog: You were working on the evaluative diversity article and I wanted a chance to help address the concerns you raised, but it looks like the page now redirects to Moral psychology. Please restore at least a stub, so I will have a chance to rebuild the article properly. Langchri (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for talking! You may want to consider working over at Wikiversity - they welcome original research there. But if you insist on working here...... you can rebuild it from the redirect if you like. I don't need to do that for you. But the previous version was really a disaster - full or WP:OR and WP:SYN. I went though it very, very carefully - I took almost all day to read it and all the sources you cited. As far as I can tell there are almost no secondary sources on "evaluative diversity". What little there is, appears to be have been mostly written mostly by you and most of those publications are not reliable sources as they are not peer-reviewed. I considered leaving a stub but in my view there wasn't enough even for that. Please, please read WP:OR, and also WP:SELFPROMOTE and WP:SELFCITE - you should not use Wikipedia to promote your theories nor cite your own work excessively. If you keep doing that, I am sorry to tell you that you will get blocked for WP:NOTHERE. But please also see WP:EXPERT - that article discusses how you could be really really useful here and warns against dangers that experts face - see in particularly warning #5. In any case, please do know that I am watching the Evaluative diversity article and if you add back WP:OR I will remove it, as we cannot have that in WP. I really encourage you to work at Wikiversity - you will have much more freedom to do what you like there. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I also want to say that I thought a lot about where most of the content belongs. As you saw, most of it went to Moral psychology - that article was really lacking a discussion of the instruments, and after I took out the twisting of the content to be about evaluative diversity, it fit very, very well there and filled that gap. But I think the place to build from is Pragmatic_ethics#Moral_ecology - I just redirected the Evaluative diversity article there. It is a pretty interesting notion you are onto. Again I don't think there is enough literature out there yet, to justify a whole article within Wikipedia. But it should be a fruitful thing for you to work on, out there. btw, I also thought that Decision theory might be a good place to build within for this topic. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've figured out how to get to the redirect. Without that, I would be unable to learn anything from your edits. You spent a lot of time, and I appreciate that. I will start making use of your work by adding more sources that contain the phrases "evaluative diversity" and "evaluativism" because that seems to be a common theme in your concerns, but there is a lack of unified terminology in this field, so the article would lack neutral point of view if it did not also cite research that discusses evaluative diversity in other terms. Readers expect this to be an article about evaluative diversity, not an article about one of its many names, right?

BTW, you got my motives wrong. I am not on Wikipedia to publish. I am here to learn. Specifically, I am here to get a balanced picture. Where would you look for a balanced picture of this topic? Are there any experts or journals who do not see it from the narrow perspective of a discipline (or of a particular evaluative style)? Are there any keyword searches that would not systematically exclude most points of view? Can you think of anything other than Wikipedia that might succeed at synthesizing a balanced perspective? I appreciate your offer to check my edits to this page--apparently I was lacking that kind of help for over a year. Will you also please help me find ways to attract a more diverse set of contributors? Langchri (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

glad you figured it out! i don't know anything about your motives. what i can see, is your behavior, and I can see that you added a ton of content about yourself to WP. Please don't do that. The best way to get more contributors is to figure out what Wikiproject your article is part of, and post on the Talk page of those projects, asking for help. Jytdog (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The biggest issue with that article, wasn't the kind of direct mapping of the term "evaluative diversity" - not at all. That is a useful shorthand way to think about it, but the problem was that you basically replicated your Moral Ecology book chapter in WP. That book chapter is (kiind of) fine to exist out there in the world (fwiw I am not sure it would survive peer review but that is a different topic) but here in WP the multiple leaps you made several times - for instance, a first leap is the claim that people can be classified into 2 groups based on the Milgram experiment, and a second leap, is the second (!) claim that those two groups have anything to do with "evaluative diversity" -- I am not sure that either leap is even valid, much less the cumulative one (which is why I am not sure the chapter would survive peer review) but here in WP they are way, way WAY WP:SYN and WP:OR. In WP we are editors - our job is to read secondary sources that reflect consensus in any given field' and summarize that content here. We are not authors. Almost all the content you added to WP is pushing your own views into WP and that is a bad thing. This is why I encourage you to work in Wikiversity - I understand that they welcome that kind of stuff over there. When secondary sources start talking about your work, and about Evaluative diversity, that is when the topic will be ripe for discussion in WP. Not before. I hope that makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you just saying that the peer-review of Moral Ecology was not very good, or that it does not qualify as a reliable secondary source peer-reviewed and published by a reputable press?

I think we can find other reliable sources indicating that Milgram believed that individual differences determined which subjects would administer the final shock (i.e. that some were moral and others were not)--I plan to point to specific passages in the sources next time.

Can you please help me understand more about self-cite and about whether Wikipedia is supposed to reflect controversy, or exclude that material until consensus is achieved in secondary sources?

WP:NPOV says "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." In fields which lack consensus, I take that to mean that editors should cite secondary sources that do not reflect consensus (so as to present all significant views in a verifiable way). How am I misunderstanding that? (see also WP:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to_delete)

WP:SELFCITE says "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion." I doubt "not excessive" means that you need to earn the right to cite your own work by first doing a lot of other work in Wikipedia--I think it means that your citation should not be unnecessary or unbalance the WP:NPOV in the articles to which it is added. Thus, it is OK for an editor to do nothing other than cite her own work (provided the citations are within reason). The only times I think self-citing is "within reason" is when the only way to fix WP:NPOV in an article (or fix the occurrence of an unsourced point of view in an article) is to cite one's own work. Based, on WP:BB the procedure would be to simply add the citation (and point of view) then let the community decide whether to keep the edit. If the community reverts the edit, the self-citer should "defer to the community's opinion". According to WP:DCOI, one should not identify oneself (and potentially endure danger from stalkers) by declaring conflict of interest. We probably also ought not contribute to a culture of transparency which causes others to similarly endanger themselves. Thus, we welcome experts in fields that have not yet achieved consensus to search-out related articles in Wikipedia to confirm that they represent all significant views, and to add any missing significant views of both themselves and their opponents. If those views do not yet appear in other reliable secondary sources, then they should cite their own reliable work. We then expect the community to check whether these additions distort WP:NPOV. I don't know that you would want to call these people "editors", but their contributions should be appreciated. The chastising comes if someone reverts the citation for reason of WP:NPOV and the self-citer disputes that decision. How am I misunderstanding that? Langchri (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Would you please tell me if your work has been discussed in a work written by someone else, and if so, provide the citation(s)? And no it is not "OK for an editor to do nothing other than cite her own work (provided the citations are within reason)". Doing that means you are not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather that you are here to promote yourself. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting your ideas. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be focusing on the editor, rather than on the edit. WP:NOTNOTHERE seems to suggest that narrow focus is perfectly fine. The issue of soapboxing is linked to WP:NPOV: If the edit fixes a problem with WP:NPOV and is verifiable, then it is not soapboxing, right? That's about the edit, regardless of who makes it. This whole line of "show me another secondary source that cites the secondary source you want to cite" would give Wikipedia a conservative bias. If the source is secondary and reliable, then it has already been confirmed to contain ideas that multiple experts find noteworthy. That standard should be sufficient, especially when dealing with ideas that have only recently appeared in reliable sources, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.114.22 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP address is making the same arguments as langchi and writing in the same style, and appears to be langchri without acknowledging that. If so (and it is anything other than simply forgetting to login) that is a violation of our policy, WP:SOCK. Turning to the content, Wikipedia does have a conservative bias. We are not on the cutting edge of anything as we are an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original researcher. Our goal is to describe the consensus in any field. That's why we use secondary sources (reviews) and why I asked if Chris' work has been cited by anybody else. The edits to date appear to be self-promotion and POV-pushing. It's a behavior issue. It also goes to COI (self-promotion and opposed to building an encyclopedia) so there is some focus on the editor. Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

What will it take for you to agree that an article (instead of a redirect) should exist for Evaluative diversity. Please suggest specific criteria. Langchri (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear if Chris' work has been discussed in a work written by someone else, and if so, the citation(s). When you answer i'll be glad to address your request for suggestions. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not find any citations for these two in Google Scholar. Is there anywhere else you want me to look?

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=our+responsibility+to+manage+evaluative+diversity&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C50&as_sdtp=

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22moral+ecology+approaches+to+machine+ethics%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C50

What will it take for you to agree that an article (instead of a redirect) should exist for Evaluative diversity? (I am not asking what it would take for you to agree that Santos-Lang should be cited). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.114.22 (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason why every policy and guideline about content in Wikipedia calls us to use secondary sources, is because they provide an overview of the given field - they tell us what are mainstream and important ideas in the field, and which are just kind of floating out there and may or may not be important. If Chris' work is not discussed by anybody else, we have no way of assigning appropriate WP:WEIGHT to it, and you should not be adding citations to it all over WP. Since his work is uncited by others, that is even more clearly a pattern of promotional editing. Let

turning to your question, let me ask you, what are the key works in the field of "evaluative diversity"? Where do I find an overview of thought about it?

I note, finally, that Chris himself believes that "It might take years before the value of these fields (machine ethics and evaluative diversity) can be assessed". You can find that quote here. A field that cannot be assessed, is probably not ripe for a Wikipedia article. Again WP is not cutting edge. Jytdog (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

One might equally say "It might take years before the value of the field of artificial intelligence can be assessed," yet Wikipedia should include articles about it! Humans have been dealing with evaluative diversity as long as we have been dealing with ethics. One could argue that the Tanakh, Bhagavad Gita, Tao Te Ching, Analects, Dhammapada, Bible, and Quran each offer an overview of thought about it. Most of this thought was recorded before terms like "ethics" were commonly used, yet we would still say they deal with ethics. The overview of secular thought is divided by discipline. Wallach and Allen provide an overview from the machine ethics side. John Doris reviews the history of the philosophical debate relative to moral realism as well as writing the moral psychology handbook. Blackwell reviews the diverse moral theories. Wendorf provided a history of moral psychology. John Hibbing reviews the more recent work in neuropsychology and genetics. The notability of the topic is well established, and the redirect to Pragmatic ethics is misleading. What will it take for you to agree that an article (instead of a redirect) should exist for Evaluative diversity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.114.22 (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

all that is your WP:OR. and please sign in when you write in WP, and please sign your posts. Thanks. Please do read WP:OR. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

All that is simply an honest answer to your question. You and I seem to disagree about whether an article for Evaluative diversity should exist, and I would like to negotiate a resolution that will satisfy both of us. Please be more specific about what it would take to satisfy you. What is your criterion for inclusion of an article (instead of a redirect) for Evaluative diversity? Langchri (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog has already answered your question multiple times: independent, secondary sources are required to build an article. Now, please review WP:NOTGETTINGIT. If you continue, then the next step will be to ask you to please read WP:HARASSMENT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Trying to resolve a disagreement through negotiation is not WP:HARASSMENT (nor is answering Jytdog's questions on his talk page). Jytdog--is your criteria for inclusion simply to have two independent secondary sources? In the entire article you removed (with 158 sources), were you unable to find even one secondary source about evaluative diversity? Suppose I find two not-yet-cited secondary sources by not-yet-cited authors that discuss evaluative diversity (a.k.a. moral diversity), then can we all be satisfied with the existence of an article instead of a redirect? Langchri (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

hi chris. above, I asked you "what are the key works in the field of "evaluative diversity"? Where do I find an overview of thought about it? " and you gave me a long long answer with lots of individual thinkers. Let me try again. If I want to get an overview of the field of ethics, there are dozens of textbooks that would introduce me to that field, as well as encylopedia articles in places like the stanford encylopedia of philosophy, etc. What would I read to get that kind of overview of "evaluative diversity"? It is a real question - I am not messing with you. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not messing with you either. You really do have many options to get your overview, and each includes things the other does not. The same is true of ethics--where would you find an overview that covered philosophical ethics, machine ethics, the physiology of ethics, and biblical ethics (etc.)? I suppose it would be possible to divide the "Evaluative diversity" article into separate articles for the different kinds of overviews (e.g., "Christian doctrine on evaluative diversity", "Evaluative diversity in the moral realism debate", "Evaluative diversity of algorithms", "Physiological evaluative diversity", "Evaluativism", "The study of evaluative diversity in psychology", etc.), but shouldn't we branch those off as the article grows larger? Langchri (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. Please do. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me try to clarify: You can find an overview of secular thought about evaluative diversity in Wallach and Allen, or Doris, or Blackwell, or Wendorf, or Hibbing. What is your point? Langchri (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Those names are not helpful to me. Can you provide citations? Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Wallach, Wendell; Allen, Colin (November 2008). Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong. USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-537404-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, ed. (2008). Moral psychology, Vol 2: The cognitive science of morality: Intuition and diversity. Cambridge, MA, US: MIT Press.

LaFollette, Hugh; Persson, Ingmar, eds. (2013). The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Wendorf, Craig A (2001). "History of American morality research, 1894–1932". History of psychology. 4 (3): 272–288. doi:10.1037/1093-4510.4.3.272.

Hibbing, John; Smith, Kevin; Peterson, Johnathan; Feher, Balazs (2014). "The deeper sources of political conflict: evidence from the psychological, cognitive, and neuro-sciences". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 18 (3): 111–113. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.010.

and here's one that wasn't in the original article http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/can-your-genes-predict-whether-youll-be-a-conservative-or-a-liberal/280677/ Langchri (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

. hm.

with regard to the Moral Machines book, this is about problems around computers making decisions, and how to program them ... optimally. Unclear to me how this provides an overview of the field of "Evaluative diversity"
Which essay in Moral psychology, Vol 2: The cognitive science of morality: Intuition and diversity provides an overview of the field?
The Blackwell book is about ethics. Are you saying that "evaluative diversity" is just "ethics"?
The Wendorf book is about the history of morality research. Are you saying that "evaluative diversity" is the same as "morality"?
the "deeper sources of political conflict" article is just that. it's about politics, which i guess are the result of differing "evaluations"... but how does this provide an overview of "Evaluative diversity"?
and the atlantic article is basically a popular treatment of the "deeper sources of political conflict" article. not sure why you are presenting that here.

really. I want to know what "evaluative diversity" is and get an overview of how people think about it. Where do I find that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with all; this seems to be going in the same circle, and it still comes down to original research. Further, the article in the Atlantic 1) never mentions evaluative diversity, and 2) is a laypress article making medical statements ... in other words, it is not a WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary source. But I think I've said this several times already. Also, the idea that there are not broad overview articles in other fields of ethics isn't on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"Evaluative diversity" is range of evaluative types (obviously). What experts think about it is this:

The results of decision-making are determined in part by the type of decision-maker
We encounter various types (so there is disagreement), and
Researchers are making progress on characterizing these types.

Do we agree that these theses should be represented in Wikipedia in some fashion?

You will find all three of these theses in each of the overviews I cited:

The Moral Machines book compares three different evaluative types it names "Consequentialist" "Deontological" and "Virtue Ethics".
Blackwell likewise organizes the types around moral theories with the same names (plus others, e.g., "Pragmatic Ethics").
The Wendorf history describes several typologies, culminating with Kohlbergs six stages (which Kohlberg maps to the moral theories described in Moral Machines).
"Deeper sources of political conflict" does indicate that the typing it discusses impacts our moral and religious behavior as well as our political behavior.

I also think Wikipedia should acknowledge the variety in numeracy and naming of types (e.g., "evaluative diversity", "moral diversity", "political diversity", or what have you), and that it should include what we know about discrimination on the basis of this kind of diversity (because discrimination is an important topic for Wikipedia). If you want me to point you to an overview that covers everything that I think should be in the Wikipedia article (e.g., all the variety in numeracy and naming), that I cannot give you, but I'll bet Wikipedia has many articles that contain a broader perspective than that of any of the individual sources it cites.

Here are some sources regarding the term "evaluative diversity" (not overviews of the concept, but solid examples of what the term means):

The term "evaluative diversity" is attributed to P. F. Strawson as referring to the range of "certainly incompatible, and possibly practically conflicting ideal images or pictures of a human life, or of human life".

Nelson, Paul. Narrative and Morality: A Theological Inquiry. Penn State Press, 2010. pg 40-41
Tierney, Nathan L. Imagination and ethical ideals: Prospects for a unified philosophical and psychological understanding. SUNY Press, 1994. pg 18-19

As an example, Brandt observed that the Hopi people have no moral qualms about tying birds to strings and playing rough with them (which kills them), and could not explain his disagreement with them about this in terms of disagreement about nonmoral facts.

Doris, John M., and Alexandra Plakias. "How to argue about disagreement: Evaluative diversity and moral realism." (2008). p314

As another example, evaluatively diverse individuals may agree on the measures of a product's qualities (e.g. its novelty or ease of use), but disagree about whether the product is good (because they disagree about the relative importance of different qualities).

Karapanos, Evangelos, Jean-Bernard Martens, and Marc Hassenzahl. "Accounting for diversity in subjective judgments." In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 639-648. ACM, 2009. pg 640

As a third example, evaluative diversity creates a challenge for the possibility of a social contract to ground political philosophy.

Gaus, Gerald 2010, “Evaluative Diversity and the Problem of Indeterminacy”, in The Order of Public Reason: A Theory of Freedom and Morality in a Diverse and Bounded World, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1107668058, page 42 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Langchri (talk • contribs) 05:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I have a somewhat better grasp on what "evaluative diversity" is now and how the concept can be deployed. The fact that you had to do that yourself, and couldn't point me to any work that does that, is exactly the problem. What you write above, when you say "I'll bet that Wikipedia has many articles that contain a broader perspective than that of any of the individual sources it cites" shows that you don't understand Wikipedia and the policy, WP:OR and especially WP:SYN. There should not be any Wikipedia articles that contain a broader perspective than that of any of the individual sources it cites. Those articles would violate this core content policy. I will quote it for you here:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.

This field does not appear to be ripe for a WP article. Jytdog (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your interpretation of WP:SYN. Now I understand your objection. If you interpret WP:SYN to mean "There should not be any Wikipedia articles that contain a broader perspective than that of any of the individual sources it cites," then we do not interpret it in the same way. I think it applies to specific theses rather than to entire articles or sections (which should be synthesized collections of theses related to the topic). In other words, I think WP:SYN is about protecting the credibility of Wikipedia, rather than about making sure it is never the most complete individual source. Moreover, if you believe an article says "A and B, therefore C", I believe the way to edit it is not to remove the entire article, but to leave the "A and B" part alone and flag the "therefore C" part as needing a source.

It seems we have a fundamental difference of interpretation of WP:SYN. How would you propose we get clarification regarding which interpretation is correct? Langchri (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Did you see this question? WP:AFD seems to be the official procedure one should take before replacing an article with a redirect... Langchri (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I had not seen that. Done. Please do not write here anymore. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog

Thanks for your help, that has helped me understanding Wikipedia better. But, another question has come up. Where you found my contribution on Social media Page, you can find this line which has no relevancy with the subject i.e. social media at all. -Ages, Pigments Through...- Even though that link is Live on that page? Please help me understanding this. Jasonsocial (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

removed it. good catch. Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI post

Just an FYI, it looks like you accidentally pasted part of the Evaluative diversity AFD content into your recent ANI post. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

thanks!! Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

ALS

The claim still lacks empirical support and should be removed. Adding in Hawking certainly makes sense, the only thing you can say that has empirical support about ice buckets is that it exploded on social media in summer 2014, SOUGHT to increase awareness of the disease, and resulted in record contributions to ALS research. If you want to say that go for it, but the claim that currently exists at the top neither belongs nor has support. This was not something that nobody knew about until people started dropping buckets of ice on their heads, and the way this is currently written is insulting. Furthermore, it takes at least 2 for an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.175.137 (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for talking, but please discuss on the article Talk page. i just got into a stupid argument because i forgot i had responded to someone here instead of on the article Talk page. You can just copy your comment above, there. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Jobs in Dubai

Thanks. I was delaying that until after Johnmoor's problems were addressed. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

More importantly, thanks for addressing Johnmoor's behavior and editing. --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

you are welcome. i care about COI in WP a lot. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

COI/paid editing warning

You gave me a COI/paid editing warning earlier this morning. I understand the conflict of interest policies and have not written any articles in over 6 months. I appreciate your enthusiasm for keeping Wikipedia unbiased but I'm wondering why exactly you decided to issue such a warning given my lack of posting and editing. No article I have ever written in reference to my work has ever been published. I appreciate the information, I'm just confused as to why I'm receiving it now out of the blue from an editor I've never spoken to. WhitleyOConnor (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles that you worked on recently came to my attention. The matter of timing is really not important. It appears that you worked on a bunch of articles related to Integris. If you did that work for pay, you should disclose that per the terms of use, as described here WP:COI and in the notice I left on your Talk page. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering . . .

Why you reverted my edits to Medtronic? Usually it is good etiquitte to put a note of explanation on the editor's talk page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

it appeared to be vandalism. Medtronic is not a plc. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, as of today (and as a result of its reverse merger with Covidien, Medtronic IS a plc. Go to Medtronic's homepage and at the bottom you will see "© 2015 Medtronic plc" Could you please self-revert your reversion? Thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

done. its good to present sources for that sort of change - I did that. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine-tuned Universe

Hello Jytdog, You recently reverted an edit on "Fine-tuned Universe" based on the reason, "No original research".

If so, then why is the following text allowed in the page? It also cites the very same original research used by the edit you reverted.

"Fred Adams has investigated the structure of stars in universes with different values of the gravitational constant G, the fine-structure constant α, and a nuclear reaction rate parameter C. His study suggests that roughly 25% of this parameter space allows stars to exist.[17]"

The edit that you reverted was only adding more clarifying information to the above text using the same cited source. Therefore, the edit should be accepted. 205.241.40.253 (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to respond on the article Talk page - would you please post the question there? (it is hard to keep track of things when they don't happen in one place) Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I have posted the question on the article talk page. Thank you.

205.241.40.253 (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI comment

I had moved your comment a bit down to the section which was started by Indoscope, as Lost River was the article that effected him most. Lost river is a different subject where there is agreement not to include anything that is not mentioning or reviewing the book, however, one of the user is not satisfied with it because he believes that the content of the book promotes fringe. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Also I would have no problem if you completely remove your comment, because we are trying to focus on content without getting into ANI comment which will likely cause trouble or still remain unhelpful at this situation. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

you did not have my permission to move my comment. and no i will not take it down. 16:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment at the mediation page

Believe me, I can understand how you feel. It's constantly exasperating. But I don't think that what he said to you was really a criticism of you. And the way that you said you were leaving the mediation looks really, really bad. Please sleep on it, and reconsider. I don't want to be all alone there. And you cannot be confident that even what I said was an emerging consensus will hold. You will likely want to keep an eye on that discussion. Leave it, and you let the people who disagree with you win. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to bail on you. The quotes around "definition" were sarcastic. There is no other reason to put them there. You know all that drama about "male" editing ruining WP? The underlying issues are real and by now I am sick of it. (the drama was childish, but the underlying issues are real). It is starting to disgust me. But for you I will strike what I wrote and try to stay in it. I am sorry to you, for having lost self-control. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and I am very relieved that you are going to stick with it. I really appreciate it. And I want you to understand that I agree with you about much of it being disgusting. Some of what is going on there is some of the nastiest and most dishonest stuff I've seen at Wikipedia, and I suspect that it will ultimately end badly for some users. Then again, one has to expect a certain amount of that at a page where that is the subject matter. But ultimately, this place is only a website, and it isn't worth it to let some anonymous person get in the way of the more pleasurable aspects of this hobby. It's important not to take this stuff personally. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see you back! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that I'm guilty of pulling you back into it, I see that you have been repeatedly getting aggravated by those other editors. Please understand, I agree with you. You are not wrong about it. But I'm pretty sure that all of this mess is eventually going to find its way to ArbCom. Therefore, you don't want to have too much of a track record of having made comments that you either had to subsequently strike out, or that can be read as reflecting anger at those other editors. Every time that something strikes you as bad faith – and I fully agree that there's a lot of that – please resist the urge to reply right away. Step back from it for a brief while, and reply when you are ready to take the posture of being unruffled and above it all. Assume that everything where you hit the "save" button is going to come under scrutiny, because I expect that it will, and in a very serious way. You don't need to change the minds of people whose minds cannot be changed, but you do need to appear to neutral third parties, who will later look at everything, to be someone who was always trying to be accommodating and cheerful. A technique I find useful: You can be earnestly "amazed" that someone would think that you meant something, but you don't want to be angry that they would think it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I imagine where this will end up is a series of RfCs. But I totally hear what you are saying. Nose clean. Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Normally, I like content RfCs. But here, RfCs won't really achieve a lasting consensus, because they will attract editors who respond on gut reactions instead of based on a careful consideration of the source material. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It is bloody hard to WP:AGF when all semblance of GF has been flushed down the toilet by a non GF editor. There are loads of them working diligently to promote their pet subject, and many are protected by pet admins too. I actually haven't looked at the subject of the dispute you are talking about, but Jytdog understands where I'm coming from, and has far more patience than I. I suppose my question is - "What do you do when good faith is no longer possible, when editors have shattered the boundaries of good faith? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a very valid question, and I'll tell you my personal answer to it. In the situation where Jytdog and I find ourselves, I am already past the point of AGFing, in my own mind, about those other two editors. (Strictly speaking, more so for one than for the other. I think one of them is an out-and-out POV-pusher, whereas the other is a sincere but misguided person who insists on strict readings of certain guidelines beyond all common sense.) But there are really two dimensions to this, and the difference between them matters a lot. It's one thing for me to think those things. But it's another altogether to say it out loud. Nothing in Wikipedia's expectations and norms restricts what editors can or should think. But it matters how we communicate with one another. We can be judged by that, and it's appropriate that this is so. The reason I've been getting in Jytdog's face about it, is that I've seen in the past how bad-faith editors can goad good-faith editors into saying things that get the good-faith editors in trouble, sometimes deep trouble, as in getting banned. In fact, that's part of the Bad-Faith Editing Handbook^TM. Jytdog is a good-faith editor, and I'm trying to prevent him from falling prey to that scheme. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts about the edits in the OCD Wiki

Hi bro, I made some edits in the OCD wiki. If you are not satisfied with my edit, you are free to re-edit it. :) But please just see what i scribbled in the Talk page of OCD wiki. :)

Thanks,

Robin Mathew Rajan (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial

Too bad rather than just removing what I posted which is widespread criticism of the study, you didn't look for better sources. Just because it didn't meet some technicality, not having the information on there is not beneficial for society. I may try to look more later to see what I can find, but I wish you and others who revert things would try to help contribute to the community in that way. Predecess (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on G. Edward Griffin. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. – S. Rich (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI

It's generally expected that you first discuss the outcome with the closer on their user talk before taking it to AN (I'd imagine you could still self-revert at this point). I think it also leads to better chances of an overturn, since any issues with the close will be clearer and editors will see that you've already tried to get a resolution. :-) Sunrise (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks, will unwind and try that first. thank you for reaching out! Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog

Hi Jytdog, I took some time to read your profile and have found an immense respect for you. Thanks again for improving the wiki community. I understand we may have some differences in views over the ANU page I believe this is good for the community. Thanks again mate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.156.180.103 (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

how kind of you! Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Argus retinal prosthesis

Hi there. I see that you reverted my recent addition to this article with the edit summary "(remove PROMO)". Did you mean WP:PROMO? If so, I wonder if you could possibly explain why you think that is the case? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You are referring to this "In February 2015 a trial of the device was announced by the UK's Manchester Royal Eye Hospital.^[1]" Who cares? Not notable. And yes it looks like an attemp to promote the hospital. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

^ Dean Kirby (3 February 2015). "World first: Bionic eyes to let blind people in Manchester see again". men. Retrieved 3 February 2015.

I would imagine that many visually-impaired people who live in Manchester, and the North West of England in general, will certainly care. You think the hospital will "benefit" from this in some way? Perhaps you could tell us how many trials of this device have taken place in the UK as a whole up to now? Your assertion that "it's not notable" could then be put into context. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

HI martin - I understand that you were well intentioned. I'll go further than you -- if this feasibility trial is successful, and if the subsequent pivotal trial is successful, and if the company is able get regulatory approval and approval of payors to bring the Argus to market in this indication, it could be a game changer for millions of people. (see page 10 here, the second paragraph of the "Our Market" section for a description of how the Manchester trial fits in Second Sight's overall strategy).

Generally, we don't discuss specific clinical trials that are ongoing nor the sites where they are occurring; the exceptions that I am aware of, are when there are big trials ongoing that are designed to resolve really big or controversial questions and are therefore discussed in independent secondary sources, in a serious way. The source you brought is a typical news media piece hyping medical news; the news media love "wow" health news and generally overhype the actual work being done and editors often "fall" for that. Per WP:MEDRS we source health content based on secondary sources published in the biomedical literature and statements of major medical & scientific bodies. We do not deal with cutting-edge WP:CRYSTALBALL matter that may or may turn out to be important. We cannot know at this time if Argus will work in dry AMD. Overall we aim to communicate reliable information to the public about health matters - we avoid yanking people this way and that with news about research being done that doesn't even have results yet (as in this case) or about provisional results that are not vetted in secondary sources. The news media so often (sadly) do yank people around with the kind of hype found in the source you brought.

With regard to Second Sight's feasibility study --only after the results of that trial are published and then those results are discussed in a secondary source per MEDRS - only at that time, should the matter be discussed in WP.

I looked at your contribs and you don't seem to edit much in health related matters, but that is how Wikiproject Medicine rolls. If this conservative approach doesn't makes sense to you, please do see WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS, and please consider reading the lead of an essay I am drafting - if you like please see it - Why MEDRS?.

But yes, your edit, based on that source and emphasizing the site of the trial, seemed promotional to me, and not in line with how we handle health matters in WP. It did accurately reflect the source - I definitely grant you that - but that is not the kind of source we use for health-related content in WP. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

We'll just have to wait, then. Thanks for your thoughtful answer. A lot more helpful that just saying "who cares", I think. I'm well aware of WP:MEDRS thanks, and I'd suggest that my editing history (or your evaluation of it) is wholly irrelevant. I'm also still at a loss to see how adding this news item "promotes" the hospital concerned. It's not making any claims about effectiveness, it's just a factual statement about a volunteer trial. If readers go to that article wanting to know "has this device ever been trialled in UK?" - what do they find exactly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I note that you have now adjusted your response further. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

yes sorry I hadn't noticed your response. it was just a tweak.. in any case, based on what you wrote here I no longer believe that your edit was intended to be promotional of the hospital; sorry about that. You would be surprised (or maybe not) at how often promotional matter is added. I believe you were just trying to reflect the source. I think you see the problems now with the source, which is great. I only brought up your contribs because people who don't often edit health content are often a bit flummoxed by how project med operates... i didn't intend to denigrate you at all. with regard to your question - honestly, with respect to whether any given intervention works or not, the town or country where it was tested is not relevant to understanding if it is safe and effective, nor to getting regulatory approval to sell it (outside of issues that might arise with regard to the population -- regulatory authorities around the world care about race, sex, and age differences, and, for example, won't approve a drug for use in a country where one race is predominant if it was tested in a trial where that race wasn't well represented. So you can't get approval of a drug in china if you only test it in, say, Switzerland.) That is not the case here as far as I can see. Can we just wait until there is significant coverage of the safety and efficacy of Argus in dry AMD in MEDRS sources? It will be several years til we know anything - Second Sight estimates 2019. Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I think you understand why I was thrown by your edit summary. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I do indeed, and I apologize again. Thanks for talking. Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit implementing close at Griffin article

I was unaware that the "yes" voters were in the majority, because the situation seemed rather evenly balanced, and I didn't count votes. As I noted somewhere (in the close?), the strong point of the "no" was its clear point that "conspiracy theorist", as generally used in contemporary English, is a fundamentally non-neutral way of describing someone. If it's not neutral to call the guy a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence, it's likewise not neutral to call his ideas conspiracy theories. Let me be clear: the core policy is neutrality, and your words make me think that you're attempting to wikilawyer in order to undermine that core policy and make him look bad. You can disagree with him fiercely (believe me, if I were writing a blog about this kind of person, you'd quickly see my disagreement), but drop your disagreements at Special:Login. Unless you can convince me that all involved parties (including Griffin) would consider his ideas conspiracy theories, your arguments will not gain traction, because a neutral point of view is non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

PS; I thought of this as soon as I'd hit "save". Since the beginning, we've held that "the neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree...We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points." Source is this page, the earliest accessible revision of WP:NPOV. We need to write this guy's article in a way that will be agreed on by his supporters and his opponents; the supporters will agree that the scientific establishment has rejected ideas such as HIV denialism and laetrile for cancer, but I assume that they won't agree that his ideas are conspiracy theories according to the common use of the phrase. Nyttend (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

(answering here instead of your Talk page - for those who watch my page, my query is here) ). Hi Nyytend, thanks for your note. My sense is that you don't deal with the vast amount of pseudoscience that people try to add to Wikipedia. WP:PSCI is the part of NPOV that deals with this kind of stuff, and it is crystal clear - and this is the heart of the policy, not any kind of wikilawyering - that we call a spade a spade in WP. If something is batshit crazy and mainstream, solid, reliable source, say so, we say so. Netural does not mean "neutered" nor does it mean "not negative." If you are not familiar with this, see Jimbo's quote on "lunatic charlatans". Please. In any case, will you please, please agree to restrict your implementing edit to the actual subject of the RfC - the lead sentence? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The heart of the policy is that we present things in a balanced fashion and avoid taking sides in disputes: when people dispute whether an item is a spade or a hoe, it's not neutral to call it a spade: neutrality is saying that the large majority of commentators call it a spade, that the scientific establishment calls it a spade, that those calling it a hoe are definitely in the minority, etc. As I noted already, if it's inappropriate to call the guy a conspiracy theorist in the intro's first sentence, it's also inappropriate to call his ideas conspiracy theories a few sentences later. Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wow, I'd say that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV or is at least a rather perverse personal interpretation of it. Where there's a genuine dispute (i.e. in RS) sure WP doesn't take sides, but where the dispute is betwen a fringe notion ("Tony Blair is a lizard") and rationality in RS, WP will come straight out and privilege reality without engaging in the WP:GEVAL fallacy. May be an idea to get some input from editors with expertise in this aspect at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: please clarify (for all concerned) to whom are you referring as misunderstanding NPOV – Jytdog or Nyttend? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend. Thanks for replying. I understand your perspective on NPOV, and you are certainly entitled to that. However, we had an RfC and we needed someone to close it. What I have been asking you, is to respect the question that was asked in the RfC, about the first sentence, and limit the implementing implementing edit to the scope of the RfC. You haven't responded to the issue of the scope of the RfC, which is troubling. I am sorry to say this, but it becoming clear to me that in this specific close, you didn't honor the job of closer and instead relied on your POV on the question. The editors working on the page need a close that reflects what folks actually said, and what both PSCI/FRINGE and BLP say. As I am sure you know, the close will have a strong influence on subsequent discussions, and strong and reasonable arguments were made that reflect PSCI more than your close (and perspective) did, and the close of the RfC should at least acknowledge them.

So... on the basis of our further discussion here and on your close, where you have not referred to the RfC nor to the actual discussion raised by the RfC but only to your personal views on the question, I am now asking you to a) recognize that you came to the close with a strong pre-existing POV on the question; b) decide if you can be a neutral judge and make a fair close; c) if you decide you can, to re-close, on the basis of carefully reviewing PSCI and BLP and the RfC discussion with an open mind and reflecting that review in the close; and d) as i've requested before, limit any implementing edit to the first sentence alone. If you reflect and decide your POV on the question is too strong to be a neutral closer, would you please withdraw your close and !vote instead? We are all human and have our perspectives on things, and we all mistakes. I think your close was a mistake. I say that with respect for you. We all make mistakes.

As I have written before, I am open to a close that ends up deciding that the first sentence should not refer to "conspiracy theorist" (the arguments about overkill with respect to the first sentence were very reasonable to me -- and you have not mentioned even those arguments made in the RfC) - I am not opposing the conclusion you drew per se; just the way you got there and your implementing edit. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said above,

My personal views on the subject are that he's quite the idiot, and I'd like to say so. My views on the general question are that we need to present all articles in ways with which both supporters and opponents can agree, i.e. a neutral point of view, and this necessarily excludes the use of derogatory language, which (as I already noted) the discussion concluded "conspiracy theorist" to be in this context, and which would definitely include the way I'd like to describe him. Nyttend (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You are still asserting your own views on PAG (not on Griffin, but on PAG), instead of acknowledging that was needed was a close of an RfC that took into account what people said in the RfC. I appreciate the discussion but at this point, I will move to have your close reviewed. I'll notify you when I do that. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have requested review of the close here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_review_of_close_of_RfC_at_Griffin_article Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Help please

Hi there, I know that you have done a lot of splitting articles and I'm wondering if you would be willing to split the HIV section from the Breastfeeding article. I've been trying to get someone to do it for years. Let me know. Gandydancer (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I had a quick look. Is the issue that article is too long and you would like to compact it? If so, I took a look at that section and it looks like to could be condensed a lot. The WHO subsection, for example, talks a lot about an outdated study and repeats things from the 2010 report. If you like I can work it over and we can see how it looks then. If you would just like me to split it out and do no more I could do that too. Jytdog (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, take a look at it. I've actually done that more than once in the past and the more I read the more tricky it got to be... If you can figure out a way to do it, great. I guess that my idea to move it was really a way to sweep it under the carpet because I'd guess that it is mostly related to African women and not the general reader of our breastfeeding article. So as you read it again, keep in mind that as a separate article it could go more into of the problems that their first advise caused. Maybe...it's been a long time since I read it close enough to really absorb what it was saying, but from memory that is what I remember. This would be a perfect student article and I've suggested it (rather than their usual well meant but often rather lame intents to add to present articles...). Let me know what you think - if you take a serious interest I will read it all again and we can discuss.

PS: Yes, the length is just awful... Gandydancer (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I see that you are quite busy with other articles and have decided to pester Waid instead. :) Gandydancer (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

[1] Dean Kirby (3 February 2015). "World first: Bionic eyes to let blind people in Manchester see again". men. Retrieved 3 February 2015.

[1]