User talk:Chill Mhaighneann

Note to Talk page logistics
Hi Greybridge. Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon ":" in front of your comment, and the WP software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment - and 'only at the end, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages. That is how we know who said what. I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that.

It looks like this: First comment by 1st person (signature)
 * response to that by 2nd person (signature)
 * response to 2nd person by 1st person (signature)
 * response to 1st person by second person (signature)
 * additional response to 1st comment by 3rd person (signature)

Like that. see? Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Note on advocacy
Please do read this, and think about it.

A lot of people come to Wikipedia because they are very passionate about something. That is in some ways great, and in some ways terrible.

There are a lot of things that Wikipedia is not (see What Wikipedia is not) and one of the things WP is not, is a platform for advocacy. Please especially see the section, WP:NOTADVOCACY. "What Wikipedia is Not" is both a policy and a "pillar" - something very essential to the very guts of this place. People come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also lead people to abuse Wikipedia - to hijack it from its mission of providing the world with free access to "accepted knowledge." Some people come here and try to create promotional content about their companies (classic "COI"), some come to tell everybody how bad it is to eat meat, some come to grind various political axes... we get all kinds of advocacy (financial COI is just a subset of it) It all comes down to violations of NOTADVOCACY. A lot of times, people don't even understand this is not OK. I try to talk with folks, to make sure they are aware of these issues.

For non-COI advocacy issues, we have three very good essays offering advice - one is WP:ADVOCACY another is WP:SPA, and see also WP:TENDENTIOUS which describes how advocacy editors tend to behave. Please do read those.

So, while I hear you that you are passionate about ENS in the real world, but please do try to check that at the login page. And while you are free to edit about whatever the heck you want, please do consider broadening the scope of your editing. (I do realize that you are just getting started here, and everybody starts somewhere! Who knows where you will end up)

Changes to content (adding or deleting) need to be governed by the content policies and guidelines - namely WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT and the sourcing guidelines WP:RS and WP:MEDRS.

In terms of behavior, the really key behavioral policies are WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:HARASSMENT, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:DR, and the key guideline is WP:TPG. If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course.

But do try to aim everything you do and write in Wikipedia to further Wikipedia's mission (not your mission) and base everything you do on the spirit (not just the letter) of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Your passions will determine what you work on, but they shouldn't guide how you work here. I hope that makes sense.

If you have questions about working in WP at any time going forward, or about anything I wrote above, please ask me. I am happy to talk. Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * about this, see note above. Your behavior is exactly described in WP:ADVOCACY, WP:SPA, and  WP:TENDENTIOUS Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Current medical practice does not support turbinectomy. I am an advocate for current medical practice. You are making this a war over something it is not and accusing me of advocating in favor or against something. I don't know what. But, you are wrong.Greybridge (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You have obviously not taken the time to read WP:SPA nor WP:ADVOCACY nor WP:TENDENTIOUS. Your behavior in Wikipedia, demonstratable with diffs, shows that here in Wikipedia you are an advocate for awareness of ENS, for the field to take ENS seriously as an actual condition, and against turbinectomy. This is not conjecture -  it is provable with diffs.  And again, your proposals are being rejected on the basis of the content policies and guidelines.  You keep making proposals that are rejected because like most advocates, you haven't made the effort to learn and engage with the policies and guidelines; they are just in your way, and the people upholding them are just bad people or "bullies" in your eyes.  Again, this is what advocates almost always do here.  I have seen many advocates come and go, and there are generally two outcomes - they either leave here angry and frustrated or they get thrown out of here.  There are rare exceptions when people are able to self-aware and the lights go on, and they "get it" that Wikipedia is a mature project with serious internal controls on things.  My telling you about the trajectories is not a threat - I am just telling you what I have seen unfold many, many times.  Your fate will be individual and is in your hands, of course.  Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I am trying to tell you that being against turbinectomy is not a POV or an advocacy position. It is support for current accepted medical practice based on evidence based medicine. Would you support minority views on lobotomy? No, it is a totally discredited and rejected and probably illegal. I am trying to say that just because I am for presenting current literature which supports the mainstream view on condemning turbinectomy, doesn't mean I am an "advocate". There is no minority view, one cannot be an advocate in favor of it. Are you saying that minority views should be presented in favor of turbimectomy?

Quick note
I have a little rundown of the content and behavior policies and guidelines that teaches how this place actually works - what makes it tick and what the key things are, that you need to pay attention to. If you want me to provide that to you, you can reply here, and i will post it. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

invitation
Greybridge please join me on my user page for discussion so we can form a consensus re ENS opener Ensadvocate (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Invite to edit
Please join me at the page wikipedia page i built https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alloderm I recently built it perhaps you could do some edits and help improve the page it would help me and you progress as editors with equal standing and hone our skills as editors here i was thinking better references supporting the claim Alloderm is an ecm biomaterial from secondary sources as per as per WP:MEDRS and other uses for alloderm that i have not presented Ensadvocate (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * please bear in mind that exactly the same rules apply to all pages. Dubbin u &#124; t &#124; c 21:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you stalking me? You do realize that the ENT industry is a mult billion dollar industry, and efforts have been made to marginalize the collateral damage (ENS patients). These implant materials and regenerative medicine advances (advances that researchers outside ENT who were honest enough to try on ENS patients and publish) are the most important treatments in the history of medicine for the condition of atrophic rhinitis (primary and secondary) and ENS. You do realize that primary AR is a big problem in other parts of the world, as is secondary AR due turbinate surgery - because these places like China which have adopted Western medical practice with a heavy focus on turbinate surgery. You do realise that involving yourself in this way as some sort of crusader may produce harm. This is not a game to me.Greybridge (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. This statement of your position will likely be a useful reference in future. Dubbin u &#124; t &#124; c 00:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. I won't be back. Obviously, people who come here to edit about certain subjects, have a special interest. That means they are biased. The whole discussion is inane. Report me to the obersturmbannfuhrer if that is what you must. It is like you are collecting information for a dossier you intend to turn over to the KGB or Stasi. I view your statements as threatening and a stalking action. Greybridge (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Okeydokey. Dubbin u &#124; t &#124; c 00:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)