User talk:FFN001

MSG is why I'm here
About me, I started editing because of the MSG page. A friend of mine noticed an unbelievable bias against the current state of the art research at the time. Since I have a strong science background, I tied to make fact-based changes. Nope. There are a gang of regulars that have been actively preventing people from editing on that page since I've been an editor on Wikipedia. When I make an edit here and there on other pages, it is generally appreciated. But on the MSG page, I make changes and they are always reverted within 60 minutes, usually without logical explanation. When I force a dialogue, I am dismissed, sanctioned, or stonewalled. I will keep trying until it is accurate.FFN001 (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Why you should be here
Responding to your note above... your account is what we call a single purpose account, and I urge you to read that essay, which describes the community's experience with such accounts.

Please listen -- all content in Wikipedia is derived from what we call "reliable sources". For content about health, "reliable sources" are defined in WP:MEDRS. Briefly - this means we use recent literature review articles published in high quality journals, or statements by major medical or scientific bodies (like the CDC, the NIH itself, or the NHS in the UK, or the EMA in Europe). We summarize those reliable sources.

I also urge you to read WP:YESPOV (policy), WP:PROMO (policy), and the two helpful essays, WP:Advocacy and WP:TENDENTIOUS. You have been doing the behaviors described in those policies and essays.

If you continue to behave this way - like an advocate instead of a Wikipedian -- you are likely to end up topic banned or indefinitely blocked for being not here to build an encyclopedia. Please do review the links I've provided you. Please consider editing in other topics. Please especially read and follow MEDRS.

Happy to discuss if you have any questions or thoughts about this. You can reply here, just below this. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I do edit other pages. But I have never succeeded in editing the MSG page. Besides, my story is almost identical to DocJames. I am an advocate for scientific facts and proud of it. FFN001 (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that everyone can see your contibutions and your edit count?
 * You have made 250 edits to Wikipedia. Of those
 * 43 to Monosodium glutamate
 * 7 to Chinese restaurant syndrome
 * 132	Talk:Monosodium glutamate
 * 3	Talk:Chinese restaurant syndrome
 * 39	User talk:FFN001 (all about MSG and drama around your behavior over that)
 * 224, or 90% of your edits.  And that is not tracking down the one-offs to various user-talk pages and NPOVN.
 * Your account is a SPA and you do not follow MEDRS. Your behavior is not like Doc James at all.
 * Would you please confirm that you have read MEDRS and show that by explaining why PMID 28087338 (one of the refs you suggested here) is not OK to use in WP for content about health? Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you please confirm that you have read MEDRS and show that by explaining why PMID 28087338 (one of the refs you suggested here) is not OK to use in WP for content about health? Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Officially Wikipedians are supposed to use review articles. If DocJames had all of his edits reverted immediately he probably wouldn’t have diversified his editing much either. Yes, MSG is why I’m here. I’m happy to do more editing if I see a willingness to accurately cite articles. Do the right thing. FFN001 (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly I did not intend to be a single purpose account but I suppose I am pretty close. Wikipedians see that as bad but it is a lesson actually. Treat new editors badly and they won’t move on. FFN001 (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 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, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, 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 know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on.  Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Many of my edits were reverted when I started, and Doc James' too. The difference between the two of us and you, is we learned what the policies and guidelines say, and we follow them. You have been resolutely ignoring them, which is why your edits don't stick, and why you are frustrated.  It is like going to Paris and demanding that everybody speak English and getting angry when they won't.
 * Where WP content is incorrect in light of what strong MEDRS sources say, WP content changes. It doesn't change based on weak sources and ranting. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess the point is that I am using the system now and it isn’t helping. I am citing the same review article so my source is not the problem. I have edited other pages (a few times) and the edits are not reverted. The MSG page is guarded. You know the Wiki expression “beware of tiger,” that applies best to the regulars who guard the MSG page. They are definitely assigned to watch duty for the purpose of saying there are no legitimate health concerns, but I am unclear about their reasons. Legal? Financial? Anyway, I dare them to take a dose of MSG on an empty stomach. The study they cite says they’ll get a headache! But they say there’s “no good evidence.” FFN001 (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are not citing MEDRS refs. I asked you above if you understand why PMID 28087338 fails MEDRS and you did not answer. (and btw please read Pharma shill gambit, which is what you are doing in the comment you just made -- if you keep that up you are going to find yourself indefinitely blocked) Jytdog (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * UTC)
 * No I am not citing that article. I have learned that article is not accepted because it is not a review paper. The study I am citing is https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s10194-016-0639-4 Honestly, it is industry sponsored so I don’t like it much, but it basically says MSG taken in normal quantities with food is harmless. However, more than half of the studies where it was taken without food caused a headache. I am just asking for a tiny change to reflect the study findings. FFN001 (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As for motives, I am sorry I brought it up. I will be more careful in the future. FFN001 (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note about motives and good to know that you are sticking to MEDRS sources now. From there it becomes a matter of looking at all the good ones and seeing what they say, and honestly reflecting them per WP:WEIGHT (and avoiding cherry picking stuff you happen to agree with).  I have not looked at what is going on at the talk page currently.  If you like, I will do.  let me know. Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I would appreciate if you take a look. I am going to stop posting on the MSG page for at least a few weeks for tempers to cool. Certainly mine needs to. FFN001 (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. I just took a quick look at the article and the sourcing is very strange, how it is broken up into government, industry etc. Wierd. And the refs in the health section are mostly old.  It is going to take some sleeves rolling up and i have three other things i have promised to look over that are pretty significant. I will do this but please don't expect anything for a couple of weeks at least. Jytdog (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for taking a look. I have no expectations. I very much appreciate your feedback to me. And you are right, I should go edit some other articles for a while. FFN001 (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for persisting through a difficult conversation! :) What you have done here is a rare and beautiful thing.  Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * btw if you want it, i have written a brief overview of what WP is and how it works, meant to help orient new editors. You might find it useful to help you approach WP differently... it is at User:Jytdog/How.  I also have written about the importance of secondary sources at my userpage, at User:Jytdog.  Finally (it is too much I know!) i drafted an essay that is now is mainspace called WP:Why MEDRS? that helps explain why we are so fierce about applying MEDRS consistently. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)