User talk:Tony.wallace.nz

Welcome!

Hello, Tony.wallace.nz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Adding material to Wikipedia

Hi there Tony, I thought I'd draw to your attention that Wikipedia is supposed to be built on verifiable facts. That is achieved by providing references. That's the theory, at least. In practice, there's lots of unverified material in all sorts of articles. Another fact, though, is that adding unreferenced material to articles of controversial nature runs a risk of that material being removed by another editor simply on the fact that it lacks references. Hence, I suggest that you review Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, as it's rather frustrating to see one's work disappear again. Schwede 66 03:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Tea Tape scandal, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. —Andrew_stalk 04:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Challenge for Oceania and Australia

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at A2 milk‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While well-sourced, objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Hey, you are new here.

On talk pages, we thread comments, like this:

First comment

response to that 1

response to that 1a

response to that 1b

another response to first comment

response to 1b

"outdent" because I sick of typing colons.

This is kind of etiquette here. It is described in the talk page guidelines. - See WP:TPG.

Please do this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy in Wikipedia

Hi Tony.wallace.nz.

Along with my editing here, which is mostly about health, I work on conflict of interest and advocacy issues in Wikipedia.

I'd like to make sure you are aware of what we are all about here. First and foremost, there are a lot of things that Wikipedia is not. Due to its open nature as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", a lot of people come to Wikipedia with a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, and what it isn't. One of our most important policies, is What Wikipedia is not.

One of the things it isn't, is a platform for advocacy or advertising (these are the same thing, from the community's perspective - content written to promote or denigrate something, that violates key content policies and guidelines as well).

This is discussed in the WP:SOAPBOX section of NOT.

We do understand that sometimes people are passionate about something in the real world, and want to come to Wikipedia to contribute to articles about that. This passion is a double-edged sword -- it drives contributions, but it can also lead people to be in too much of a hurry, and too intense, to learn how Wikipedia works and how to edit and behave according to the policies and guidelines that the community has built to govern itself. People who are passionate also have a hard time listening, and working through differences calmly, based on the policies and guidelines.

This is discussed somewhat in the policy section, WP:YESPOV. We also have two very good essays offering advice - one is WP:ADVOCACY and the other is WP:SPA (the latter stands for "single purpose account"). Please do read them both.

It takes time to really be what we call WP:HERE (as in "here to build an encyclopedia"). Only you can decide if you will be here, or not here.

If you do want to be here, and become part of the community and help with our work, you are very welcome and there are lots of people who will be willing to help you. But please do be aware that you agree to learn and follow the policies and guidelines every time you edit here - that agreement is in Terms of Use that is linked-to, at the bottom of every page, and a link to the Terms of Use is also directly over the "save" button in the editing window. That is the basis on which we restrict the privileges of people who are NOTHERE.

So really - it is your choice! Please slow down and learn, and please stop trying to use Wikipedia as a SOAPBOX for A2 milk. If you continue as you have been, you will end up very frustrated and frustrating a lot of people in the process.

So... good luck! I will be happy to answer any questions you have. You can reply here if you like - I am watching your page now. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog. Keith Woodford's book is an essential secondary source on this subject, and probably more reliable than government sources which are concerned about the effect of bad news about A1 on New Zealand's very important dairy industry. How many people have to suffer and die by supressing the danger A1 milk truly is. If action to rid the dairy herd of A1 proteins had started back in 2003 when this became known, it would have been completed by now. The precautionary principle was not applied and still is not. As with asbestos, whose harmful effects were known of a century before it was banned in my country, and tobacco, whose product would still be regarded as safe if judged by the standards required of A1 protein by EFSA, the primary driver is profit, and the health of the public comes a distant second. Alas the way of the world.Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well hm. Analyzing Woodford's book under the RS/MEDRS guideline is kind of interesting. First of all, it isn't independent from this whole matter, as he is a leading advocate for the view that A1 is harmful and A2 isn't, and "was a former consultant and shareholder in A2MC (though he sold his shares in 2007 to demonstrate his independence)." (from here). He is not as conflicted as Corran McLachlan but it is there. You can contrast him with the EFSA, for example, which is truly independent. Second, Devil in the Milk is about science and health, but it is not part of the scientific literature. It wasn't peer reviewed, etc. (its first publisher was Craig Potton Publishing per that our article and their website they are not a scientific publisher. Is it secondary? Well in some places it reviews the literature but more than anything it is making an argument, and it is really primary for that. All of that, is why it isn't something I would ever cite for a claim about health per MEDRS. We can ask others, at WT:MED if you like, but my sense is that this is how folks would analyze it.

And again, independent scientists and scientific bodies have reviewed the claims Woodford (and the A2 company) have made in the past, and they have no held up. The company is actually forbidden from making those health claims - they would be shut down if they tried.

You have made it clear that you are a fan, but you must follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines when you work here. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The research is primary. Making an argument I believe would make Woodford a secondary source. However in terms of the point under consideration, is A2 milk entirely, almost entirely, or just mainly A2 milk, this is a definitional matter and I will deal with it as such. There are a number of salient points I have made that you have ignored. The key questions are, is it possible to make herds that produce entirely A2 milk. Are those herds formed and supplied as A2 milk, and conversely is it allowable to sell milk as being A2 without such herd formation practices? In personal communication with Grinning Gecko Cheese for example, they make no claims about being entirely A2 because they are trying to breed out the A1 out of the herd and this process is asymptotic. To get to 100% there needs to be a culling from the herd of any cow that are not pure A2. To do that requires genetic testing which is patented. The A2 milk company employs these procedures to get 100% pure A2 milk in their products. However, in our earlier discussion I admitted that no company would like to be held to such a 100% standard for liability reasons, just as in the software industry no company claims their software to be bug free. Human error, a cow jumping the fence or other reason could cause contamination.

For these reasons I believe almost entirely to be accurate and fair, and your refusal to put this in inaccurate and unfair. Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog

I do not think God Almighty would be regarded as reliable. I suppose governments don't lie and there is no such thing as propaganda. How nieve of me! Anyway I will take my time considering what you have said, and do some more reading, so I will not be doing anything quickly. I believe the introductory sentence is factually inaccurate and I do intend preparing a case for mediation. This will take some time. 118.149.129.142 (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have prepared my case for mediation. Before I take this step I wish to have one last attempt at reaching consensus. I propose the lead begin with this sentence.

"A2 milk is milk from cows that have been bred or genetically tested to produce only A2 forms of beta-casein and not the A1 forms" <ref><http://www.google.com.pg/patents/US6570060/<ref>.Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One response to this all this. Instead of taking time "preparing a case for mediation", what you should do is a) read WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, b) understand their spirit, not just their letter; c) Read the sources already cited in the article and listen to them d) see if you can find better sources per WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, and e) present them, asking if they are OK or not. Every source you have demanded we use has not been OK, on very basic grounds. The difficulty you are having learning about the policies and guidelines here, is nobody's fault but your own. (fwiw this happens a lot with people who come here driven by passion, like you. They just will not see that this place has a foundation in the policies and guidelines.) But really - content is driven by reliable sources. This is not a hard thing to understand. Jytdog (talk) 05:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

You are obligated to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Really! It takes time to learn them but you have to try. This kind of Talk page comment does not help move the conversation forward and is actually harmful to you.

I get it that in your experience A2 milk has very different effects from normal milk for your partner as you noted here, but you must check that stuff at the log in page, and base what you do here on what reliable sources say, and the policies and guidelines.

Having a point of view is not bad and is human, but per the policy WP:YESPOV all of us have to do our best to leave that behind here. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are norms in WP. This is not constructive nor does it demonstrate trying to learn how this community works. Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So even after you have been told many times that we require RS for Wikipedia content, you have proposed a patent and a personal communication. As I already noted twice, patents are specifically mentioned as being not reliable in the WP:V policy; with regard to the email, the very definition of "source" in the WP:V policy says it must be published, and this word is bolded. Private communications are not published.

Your talk page participation is approaching, if not already past, WP:BLUDGEON. The email from Woodford is not a reliable source - it isn't published, and this is a core aspect of a reliable source, as defined in the WP:V policy. If you had read that policy and thought about this, this would be as obvious to you as it is to everyone else here.

I understand that you are trying to bring "authorities" to the discussion but you are not paying attention to the work that the community has already done to define what reliable sources are, and are not. The policies and guidelines are the product of sixteen years of editors in the community working these issues over. You are trying to re-invent the wheel and it is waste of everyone's time, including your own.

If you continue to ignore the policies and guidelines, you are going to end up topic banned. This is not a threat - -it is how the community manages editors who behave as you are behaving. You can prevent that from happening, by stopping what you are doing, reading the relevant policies and guidelines and taking them on board, and proposing changes to the article based on reliable sources as we define them here. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]