User talk:Jytdog/Archive 2

Help please to understand suggested changes
I am trying to understand your suggestion re a change in sourcing guidelines for med-related articles. How would it affect (for instance--picked pretty much at random) the "Effects on fish and amphibians" section at the Glyphosate article? Would those studies still be OK? I appreciate your help! Gandydancer (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note! I would not apply MEDRS nor the proposed language to anything other than human health and not to the section you mention - that would just be subject to regular WP:PSTS like everything else. My read of MEDRS is that it is limited to content discussing human health.   When messing with policy/guidelines you have to think about what other people might do with it...  I imagine that some people might apply MEDRS to content about veterinary medicine (livestock, poultry, pets) as that is explicitly "medicine" - I could see some people also applying it to wild animals too since thinking about the health of any animal could be considered vet med. However, I did a quick search of the Talk archives for MEDRS and found (surprisingly) no discussion of veterinary medicine so it doesn't appear to have come up.   USER:WhatamIdoing would surely know and have useful thoughts and maybe experience on this, too.    Hope that is helpful!  Jytdog (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. Next:   Would that be OK?  Gandydancer (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Vet med hasn't been discussed, and I watch relatively few pages in that area, but here's what I believe: we have too few vet med contributors, and much of the content comes from sources that are so much worse that strict enforcement against scholarly primary source would tend to harm the encyclopedia.  The main concern there tends to be more about whether the sources are promotional in nature and/or amteur websites.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks WAID Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Gandy, in the language I am proposing, that review is tricky.  There is some useful information there about human exposures for the various chemicals discussed. However, it doesn't critically review any of the primary sources it uses - it doesn't consider whether the route of administration used in the experiment it discusses, is relevant to human exposure, nor whether the dose given in the experiments is relevant to the doses to which humans are exposed, so you end up with general statements being made, that we cannot know whether they have any relevance to actual human toxicity.  This is kind of exactly what I would like Wikipedia to avoid. You may not agree with the reasoning or conclusion (which I would totally respect), but do you see the reasoning?  Thanks again for the continued conversation. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, from your reply it seems to me that if I used that study and was challenged I would not have the expertise to engage with that editor and most likely would need to just accept his/her decision. That concerns me because it seems to me that I would no longer be "smart" enough to edit many of the chemical sections that have been important to me.  To move on, I take it that this 2013 study which has not yet been reviewed  would not be allowed in the Breastfeeding article, is that correct.  Gandydancer (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The breastfeeding thing is not about toxicity, so the language I am proposing doesn't touch it.  That would fall under the existing MEDRS guideline.   That study is however a primary source reading on human health, so no wikipedia content should be based on it, under MEDRS (and under PSTS) - a secondary source should be used...  About  not being "smart" enough... you are plenty smart; based on my interactions with you!   The proposed guideline says tox content should be sourced from :secondary sources in which primary sources are critically reviewed for their relevance to humans under typical exposures and doses".  So you read it and ask, does the review discuss the dosing and route of administration used in the experiments described in the primary studies it cites"?   The review you cited lightly mentions dose, but doesn't discuss route of administration at all.  And that really matters;  if human exposure is oral (which means the substance goes through the digestive tract and is metabolized there), and the experiment uses peritoneal injection instead of oral administration, the results of that study are going to be of limited use in thinking about the toxicity of the substance to people, and the review should note that before it draws conclusions from that primary study.   The reader doesn't have to do that criticism, the reader just has to look and see if the author of the review does that.... Does that make sense?  Do you think that is too hard of a standard?  Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Time has been very short and it can be hard to find time to think things through as well as I would wish. About the "stupid" remark - I didn't mean I thought I am stupid. I guess I should be more careful in the words I choose. Would you please take a look at the other recent thyroid-related reviews on the PubMed page I referred to above. I get the impression that your proposed change would rule those reviews out as well, is that correct? Gandydancer (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Jytdog, perhaps you missed my note above. Would you have time to take a look at the studies I mention?  Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Gandy I have not gotten to it yet. I did have a look - do you mean the three articles or so that pubmed lists as "related"? Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * btw just found a link to this on ImperfectlyInformed's user page. interesting! Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, I did mean the other reviews on that page.  On the other hand, I don't expect you to spend a great deal of time of my questions.  What is important to me is to understand if a reader/editor like me will still be able to edit chem articles and if there will still be any reviews that meet new guidelines.  Maybe the best way is to go back to the first review I asked about.  First off, I need access to the full article.  I know this is possible but I've never done it.  How do I do that?  I'm also trying to figure out what you said about and the experiment uses peritoneal injection instead of oral administration, the results of that study are going to be of limited use in thinking about the toxicity of the substance to people, and the review should note that before it draws conclusions from that primary study. The reader doesn't have to do that criticism, the reader just has to look and see if the author of the review does that....  Actually I've never heard of "peritoneal injections" as a method of administration and it just does not seem reasonable to me that a study would need to say they were not used.  And so on...  In other words, are you setting the bar so high that very few reviews for chem safety will be allowed? Just sticking with the Thyroid section of the BPA article, do you see any reviews that you would consider acceptable? Gandydancer (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. Ok, yes I will look at the existing reviews in the thyroid section of the BPA article.   I can tell you that my intention is NOT to rule out all reviews - that would be a) evil and b) nobody including me who pays mind to MEDRS would ever let something so sneaky and evil happen.   Tox reviews do exist.   With respect to the rest of what you wrote...   about "peritoneal injection", the term is formally "Intraperitoneal injection" (IP) and i hope my shorthand did not throw you.  Is that what threw you, or are you asking the broader question about why route of administration (IP vs oral for example) and dose are essential in considering toxicity? Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I knew you meant IP but was not aware of the procedure. I looked it up and now I know that it is .  Anyway, I'd like to look at the review myself...how do I do that?  Also, to help me learn how to find appropriate reviews, could you point a few out?  Gandydancer (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

when you say "the review" I am sorry but I am not sure which one you are referring to. Which one?

As for examples - the gold standard review is done like the NTP one - http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/ohat/bisphenol/bisphenol.pdf. This is a huge and careful piece of work - the kind of thing that is done when there are strong concerns about something. There are great sections on analytical issues (e.g. BPA in plastic tubing used during experiments may leach into samples, contaminating them and throwing numbers off); discussions of routes of exposure and how BPA is metabolized (what forms of BPA are we talking about, exactly. and where do they appear?) It is useful to review at least the section headers to see how they proceed. But please see section "3.0 DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY DATA" on pp 158-159 of the pdf (p235-236 of the publication included in the overall document) - to see the criteria they apply in evaluating primary studies, and then have a glance at the follow sections (which are very long!) to see how they put those criteria into action in evaluating  primary sources and drawing conclusions (or not) from them. This is really beautiful toxicologic work. You can see their overall conclusions and how they frame them on p 305ff of the pdf (p382 in the publication) - which is not too long - and you can see how they explicitly say things like "at low to moderate dosage levels of BPA administered via the relevant route of human exposures..." in making conclusions.

The EU has done a similar intensive tox review - another gold standard quality job -- see here http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/15069/1/lbna24589enn.pdf I don't think this is cited in the BPA article and it should be.

There are three refs in thyroid section of the BPA article
 * ref 82 Zoeller is called Environmental Chemicals Impacting the Thyroid:Targets and Consequences. THis article goes through several chemical classes and individual chemicals (PCBs, BPA etc).  In the section on BPA, the author starts out with a very broad discussion of BPA levels found in people, in various tissues (no discussion of the what form of the chemical or analysis of the studies that produced those studies);   the author goes on to quickly summarize some in vitro results on how BPA binds to various receptors, and then to review primary studies from the author's own lab on how administration (what route of administration and what dose, the author does not say) to baby rats replicates thyroid disease.   So by now I am pretty done with this one - this is not careful toxicology work that we should use to create content.   I will also add that no studies are cited that run counter to the author's hypothesis that BPA effects thyroid function in ways that are harmful to people.   (the author writes "If BPA acts as a TR antagonist in vivo, it is predictable that specific developmental events and behaviors would be affected by developmental exposure to BPA. In this regard, Seiwa et al. (88) have shown that BPA blocks T3-induced oligodendrocyte development from precursor cells (OPCs). In addition, there may be an association between the thyroid resistance syndrome and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in humans (89–91) and in rats (89); therefore, it is potentially important that BPA-exposed rats exhibit ADHD-like symptoms (92).")   This is the kind of biased (!) and poor review that, to be quite honest,  I want to exclude for being pushing data way too hard in a way that ignores all normal toxicological analysis.  Terrible.


 * ref 83 Boas is called "Environmental chemicals and thyroid function: an update"" This is set up like Zoeller article - goes through a bunch of classes and chemicals.  BPA section is shorter than Zoeller.   It very briefly reviews in vitro and in vivo data, cites studies that suggest health effects in humans as well as those that do not.   But nothing about dose or exposure or any meaningful tox judgements at all.  Not useful for tox content but at least doesn't pretend to be more than it is.


 * ref 84 Kashiwagi is called "Disruption of Thyroid Hormone Function by Environmental Pollutants". It is kind of between Zoeller and Boas.   Doesn't apply any kind of tox analysis (nothing about dose or administration in studies it cites) and just summarizes them.   Not as biased as Zoeller, more detail than Boas.

This http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2873015/ is a sophisticated tox review article from 2009 that argues that BPA has a very high likelihood of being toxic. It deals extensively with route of administration and dose. If you read this and read any of Zoeller and Boas and Kashiwagi, i hope you can you see the difference with respect to tox principles. In my world this is a very acceptable review that deals with tox, using tox principles. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC) (note - copyedited for clarity. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC))


 * Hi Gandydancer! I hope you don't mind my jumping in. Just as a general comment, if you don't find a source free online, a local university library will usually have access. However, you might also be interested in The Wikipedia Library - as a Wikipedia editor, you can get help with finding/accessing sources, and you can also get free accounts for various services that access paywalled sources (e.g. based on what I've seen WP:HIGHBEAM is one of the more popular ones). I think it takes a while to get such accounts since there are limited numbers, but if you only need a short period of access, the Highbeam page says you can also get a one-week trial. I haven't used it myself since I'm at a university, but I don't have any reason to believe that it wouldn't be useful. Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Arc. Interested in your thoughts on what good tox sources look like too.  And gandy i would be happy to email you any ref you want. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe later. :-) I did follow your proposal on the MEDRS talk page - my main thought was that any change should be something that applied to all medically-related sources rather than specifying toxicity (except perhaps as an example). But then of course I may have missed things. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help. I am working on this as time permits and hope to get back to it tomorrow. Gandydancer (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

BP
Hi Jtydog, your name has been mentioned in a discussion on Talk:BP, and I wondered whether you had any view on the issue. In brief, the section on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was expanded in April, and significantly so on 29 April. There has been a dispute about the length of this ever since, including two RfCs (both of which said the section is too long), and now a third RfC to determine what to replace it with.

Because of the length of the dispute, I've suggested that, in the meantime, we revert to a pre-dispute (i.e. pre-29 April) version; indeed, doing so might be enough to end the dispute and make the third RfC unnecessary. I've suggested a version from 14 April as a possibility. As you edited that section in April, and might be familiar with the different versions, would you be interested in commenting here? No worries if you'd rather not. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invitation! I had a pretty bad experience on that article; and am not sure my input would be welcome by those seeking to expand, but I will look at it and weight in, for whatever it is worth.  Thanks again for considering me. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Hi, in case you don't get or ignore the notification from the new system, please note I mentioned you at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Nil Einne (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Jytdog (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks User:IRWolfie. The conspiracy-theorizing is really getting out of hand. Sad. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I also appreciate your civility under trying circumstances. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion
I've noticed that you have been involved in a lot of user talk page discussions about this GMO stuff, and I'm going to presume to offer you a bit of friendly advice. It's real understandable that you are frustrated with the way some editors have been acting. A lot of it is reprehensible, and you have every good reason to object to it. But sometimes, as at Jusdafax's talk, if you say something in irritation, people on the other "side" are going to try to use it against you. And that editor who is making such a fuss about that corn recall at the GMO page is really someone to whom WP:COMPETENCE applies, so you probably cannot persuade him, and it's a waste of time to try to enlighten him. Better to shift your attention to article-space. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful note! Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You have a response to your note on my talk page
Catrinka Trabont (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

A couple of comments
It is difficult or impossible to make any progress with anyone whose starting point is "my opinion is so obviously The Truth that nobody could possibly disagree with me in good faith. Therefore, anyone who expresses disagreement with me must be part of a conspiracy against me." Also, Wikipedia supposedly works on consensus, but if any agreement among editors is interpreted as evidence that they must be in a conspiracy, then the whole concept of consensus breaks down. If we have those two things combined together, we get a mindset that interprets any agreement with one's own position as proof that there is consensus, and any agreement with an opposing position as proof that there is an evil conspiracy. The fundamental problem with conspiracy theorists is that they are so determined to keep their paranoid view of the universe that they are completely deaf to anything that goes against that view: you can offer as many reasons as you like to think that there is no monstrous conspiracy going on, but the conspiracy theorists genuinely will not hear what you are saying. Not a lot one can do. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. Jytdog (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is a very wise point which applies to many controversial topics, not just MAM. Can we start citing it as JamesBWatson's Law? bobrayner (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment (August 2013)
I should also have added that I don't really want to become familiar with the StarLink topic, because the conversation looks like a time sink. :-) I've only ever seen a fraction of your edits, but as far as I am aware, both you and Tryptofish generally seem to have good judgement. If there is any recommendation I would give you (not specifically related to this topic), it would be that you don't have to continue a conversation indefinitely. I'm sure you're spending a lot of time on your replies, and I think of how you could be using that time to improve articles instead. Once there is a consensus, or if someone fails to give a policy-based response to an argument that cites policy, in my view the issue should really be settled unless someone wants to take it to dispute resolution or a noticeboard. Just my two cents. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Arc. You are a model of civility and great editing for me.  I'll keep your remarks in mind! Jytdog (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replied to you at my talk page. I also agree with the comment that another editor made here in your talk, and then self-reverted. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed - I thanked that editor on his/her Talk page for the advice. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, "dox"ing on Wikipedia is considered disruptive, just like WP:Outing. And that new thing absolutely sucks. Just stay cool, and be careful not to give Wer900 or Viriditas too much information, if you want to keep it private. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I intend to do what I wrote on the ANI - I will reveal myself to Wer offline on the condition that he/she keeps it private.  Maybe I will ask that he/she reveals to me too.  But if Wer does not agree to keep it private I will not reveal. But if he/she does, I AGF. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How much you AGF is up to you, but keep in mind that anything you reveal could quickly become public knowledge, and you have no way of verifying what someone else tells you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I just saw your self-COIN thread. Just so you know, I don't think that COIN can publicly discuss anything private, so what you proposed there won't really happen that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will see what happens there. They must have a way to ultimately determine who people are... Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll keep the information private. For the third time, I have no axes to grind, and stumbled into this dispute rather than being one of the originators. I am not connected to the March Against Monsanto in any way. I profusely apologize for unfair public aspersions. If you would like to investigate petrarchan47 and groupuscule for conflicts of interest, then I endorse it, by all means. Wer900 • talk 21:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wer, As I wrote to you via email, what you have written publicly, and what you emailed to me privately, has only made me mistrust your judgement and your ability to repeat simple facts accurately. I do not trust that I can disclose anything private to you.  Thank you for apologizing here and in the email. Disrupting the ANI with that attack on me was perhaps chief among the bad judgements; please strike your comments in the ANI, and I will accept your apology.  I have no desire to investigate Petrarch or Canoe for COI - I want them to stop accusing me of COI - that is the purpose of the ANI!  Did you not know that? Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No axe to grind? Your wikipediocracy blog post appears to show quite the large axe grinding away, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I want to make sure that you see the question I asked you at WP:ANI. Please answer it however you want. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

seralini affair edit
hi jytdog, thanks for your input on the seralini affair edit.

I have opened a talk on IRWolfie-'s page, and I hope you can join in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.53.80 (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for heads-up
Hi Jytdog, thanks for your note. I have moved and edited the text. Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967
Sorry about hatting your reply to Canoe1967 but the only reason his comments are disruptive is because people respond to them, derailing a conversation that should be about the sources. I hope you'll agree. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Canoe has a real question about content (that I share, for different reasons), and today he/she promised to discuss things differently] going forward... I'm going to undo Jytdog (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'd forgotten about the open ANBI. It's good to hear the atmosphere may change to something more constructive. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I've responded to you on Canoe's talk page, in efforts to keep the discussion centralized. Thanks! Sergecross73  msg me   19:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

About the un-redact edit that you just made, I fully agree with you on the merits and I left a message on his talk about it, but please don't do that any more. It makes it look like you are edit warring over someone else's talk page comments. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the advice. I made the mistake of deleting a comment on an article Talk page in the past, and people helpfully fixed it for me.  I think it is a reasonable thing to do the first time.  I agree that my 2nd one was a stretch but I felt it was worth doing in this instance.  I do not intend to do it again on this comment.  But thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't been keeping up with your arguements, but I can still see this is a train wreck. My advice to you is to simply ignore Canoe in everything (even if they ask you a direct question), except mainspace obviously. Don't respond to them at talk pages or through edit summaries. I have been around enough to know that no good will come of you continually replying to him at any articles talk page in any form. Other editors are involved and in almost every case I have seen consensus is so far against them that it your continued involvement is not required anyway. I see you as a good editor and would hate to see some form of editing restriction imposed on you, but if the current interactions continue that is a real possibility. AIR corn (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * +1. I've been wavering about whether I'm giving you too much advice, but Aircorn's comment tipped me over the line into saying something here. If you take a look at the ArbCom case that just closed about the Tea Party, they topic banned a bunch of editors over less than what you have done recently. You could very possibly be looking at a topic ban against any edits having to do with biotech, and that would be a real shame. If Canoe asks you a direct question and you feel a need to reply, you can just say something like I guess we disagree and I'm sorry that we do but I don't know what more to say – and leave it at that. Please take this advice very seriously, because you really are in a serious situation right now. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I hear you both. Really I do, and I thank you for your concern and kind words. I must keep my head and not lose my temper.   I have bitten my tongue more often than I can say, but need to do better.  I very much want to get to a place where Canoe and I can work together - somehow.  I don't think any relationship is unrehabilitatable.  But I must be more strictly calm.   Thank you both, very much. Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not really convinced that eventually being able to work with them is a realistic goal, although the sentiment is certainly appropriate. Part of what I hope you'll do is to be calm, as you say, but part of it also is to be kind of detached, as in being willing to just let something pass without responding in any form. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is where temptation bites hardest. Thank you again. Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Non English Citation
Hi, non English citation should be allowed, right? Verifiability

So1308 (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for talking! You are right.  However, parts of the Qigong article has been hotly contested in the past; if you are going to bring a non-English source, it would be good to go ahead and and provide, in the footnote, the English name of the work and a translation into English of the relevant sentence.. and if it is a book, as this one appeared to be, a page number in the citation... Thanks again for talking.  I should have made that request in the edit note - sorry I did not. Jytdog (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Question
Can I ask why you removed this discussion from my talk page, particularly without any edit summary? I, JethroBT drop me a line 14:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not intend to do that - am very very sorry! I was just trying to un-watch your page and must have hit "undo" somehow. am very sorry!  undid it. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. This has happened to me before too.  Anyway, no harm done.  Thanks!  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 14:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks for your understanding, and for asking so nicely about it in the first place. sorry again for my clumsiness. Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRIGHTLINE
I think something like this would work and should be proposed as policy, the shorter and simpler the better. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm there! thanks.Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a friendly word of advice concerning this edit; Canvassing clearly says that notifications neutrally worded and that posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner is inappropriate. These three edits do not comply with the "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief" rule. to be specific;

"As a result of the current PR-sockpuppet scandal and related discussions I have proposed that Jimbo Wale's "Bright line rule" be officially made part of Wikipedia policy" explains why you made the proposal. This is not neutrally worded and is not a brief description.

"Some folks say that is just a repeat of what's said here." characterizes some of the arguments that have already been made. Again, not neutrally worded and not a brief description.

"Jimbo - if I have misstated the bright line rule, please let me know." implies that you believe that you have correctly stated the bright line rule, which again is not neutrally worded and not a brief description.

Also, it is best to link directly to the proposal. You sent folks to WP:NOT, expecting them to figure out that they need to go to the talk page and find your proposal in the table of contents.

Finally, "...if you actually read WP:CANVASSING you will see that..." is a bit rude, especially considering that you are the one who does not understand our canvassing rules. If you still doubt this, look at the responses you got when you wrote it.

No harm was done in this case, but you really need to simply describe that a proposal exists and where to find it, using a completely neutral description of what the proposal is about. The reader of the notice should be unable to determine whether the notice was posted by a proponent or an opponent. I would even avoid mentioning that it is your proposal (so nobody who likes you or dislikes you will be swayed one way or the other) or that it is related to Jimbo in any way (for the same reasons). Neither is needed in order to make a notification that is "polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief". Put those thought in your proposal, not in the notification.

Here is an example of a good notification:


 * (Heading) Bright line rule


 * There is a proposal concerning paid editing at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. You are encouraged to join the discussion. (signature)

As I said, no harm done this time, but I wanted you to understand how to avoid canvassing in the future. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice!  You are aware that I did not make the proposal on WP:NOT, right?  I do appreciate the time you took to clarify this policy for me..  I did write the comment you quote from .".if you actually read WP:CANVASSING you will see that" and I apologize for the rudeness.  Sorry. Jytdog (talk)

Hayford Pierce
I notice you're trimming that. I don't want to get under your feet, but I suspect the lead could usefully be trimmed... Pinkbeast (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yep, body first, then lead! (so I can find it again easily)  Hayford Peirce Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

N00bie introduction
Thanks for the info. I don't want to start an infowar, and I appreciate the references to more information. I'll do my best to look at those sources before I make any further changes. Regardless of what I find, I think some of the info in the articles was presented in an unbalanced form and may make some changes to phrasing but I'll try to restrain from editing actual content for now. I really do appreciate the feedback. Thanks for that. Please do let me know your thoughts on edits/revisions/rephrasings/ etc. and I will try to consult the talk pages prior to contentious changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldatyrrell (talk • contribs) 01:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC) (by the way, feel free to delete these comments once you've read them. I super-appreciate your comments in the talk page to the gmo article but I can't figure out how to link to them here. I just started reading them now. I'll try to lead you to the talk page with comments so the discussion takes place there, not here. If that doesn't seem to happen, let me know (I'm still working on the technical aspects of the wiki)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldatyrrell (talk • contribs) 01:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC on No paid advocacy
Responded here: User_talk:MastCell --Reinoutr (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice user page essay!
Hi, I just read what you have written on your user page, and I want to compliment you on it. Taken as a whole, it's one of the more thoughtful and clueful essays about Wikipedia that I've read in a while. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * that's very kind of you, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Seconded. And thank you for taking the time to dive and research a major controversial area -- it is this sort of attention and focus by someone with no personal stake in an issue that makes Wikipedia brilliant.  I'd love to do the same for a scientific topic one of these days (climate change and energy production are areas rich in them), but haven't recently had the time.  Regards, –  SJ  +  20:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * thank you - that is very kind of you. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Concur
I concur with your “too much WEIGHT” description of my edit that you undid in the Problem of Evil article given the context in an already cumbersome article. I’ll try a lighter edit that I think is clearer, contains more solid info, and has specific citations which the present version lacks. If you want to undo this try, I’ll give up. As an 89 year old professor emeritus of a theological school, I have neither the will nor the energy to fight: barely enough to try a few edits. Vejlefjord (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note and for working to improve Wikipedia! Have you had the pleasure of reading Levenson's Creation and the Persistence of Evil? One of the most creative and useful (!) treatments of the problem from the perspective of the Hebrew Bible that I have ever seen. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

GMOs
You seem to have deleted and changed a lot of my additions. Based on your comments it seems that your changes are well motivated and enhance the article, so thank you for your diligent work! --Forp (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I did indeed. You did a LOT of work and I really appreciate that. Thanks again for all your work - I hope you stick around! Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The database
I'll bet the owner of MyWikiBiz.com would e-mail you a link to the "100 articles about businesses" database, if you contacted him privately by e-mail. Just a hunch. - 2001:558:1400:10:4024:ACA8:5451:B4BC (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. However I am not a data guy; I ask data guys for answers! But thanks for the suggestion and for providing the link to it.Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice
I will be reporting myself (in apology) to the Administrators Noticeboard for my modification of your recent edit at Jimmy's Talk page; but you should also know that I will be asking the administrators to issue you a warning about your intolerant, hateful choice of words. - Stylecustom (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * well done! Your idea of "intolerant" and "hateful" is very... delicate. I am sorry you were offended.   But really...Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I was the "victim" (quote unquote) of Jytdog's harsh but not actionable words. I suggest that this matter be nolled, as they say in the court system. Coretheapple (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * thank you core! Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Your recent editing history at Genetically modified food controversies shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Roccodrift (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I see just one edit from this user in the last 24hrs. What gives? Alexbrn talk 19:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the warning; please do note that 1) there is a course from Western Ontario University that unfortunately chose GM controversies as a topic, that has not been well tutored and that has been bombing this page and others with inappropriate content; and 2) I have been careful to make clear edit notes and to discuss things a lot on Talk. But I see what you mean and again I thank you for the warning. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't pick up on the student activity. Yes, I do understand how that can screw up an article.  Perhaps page protection is in order?  Roccodrift (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Things seem OK now but I would be grateful if I could ping you in the future if things get uglier...my apologies to the community again for too many reverts. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

BP article RfC
I have started an RfC on the BP article and would welcome a response from you. I am sending this message to all users who have edited that page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Martin Hogbin. Thanks for the invite!  However  I checked who you provided this invitation to, and it appears that you did not invite quite a few of the top contributors to the BP article - I suggest you do all top 20 to ensure that you are not open to criticisms of WP:CANVASSING.  I am sorry to say that I find the culture of the community working on that article to be uncivil and toxic, and do not want to participate.  But thanks again for the invite. Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I just went through the last RfC and invited everyone who had contributed to that. I am quite happy to invite all contributes to this page, I want the widest possible opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

An AFC submission that may interest you
The submission is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/event (biotechnology). I thought you might be able to give some feedback/improve the article, given how interested you are in genetically modified food related topics. Jinkinson  talk to me   What did he do now?  19:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Regarding this edit, and your edit summary: "ed this is a different merger proposal. not to Patents as mine was but to Criticism of Patents", well I don't think that the merger proposal is different. "Criticism of Patents" is a redirect to... patent. --Edcolins (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed - didn't catch that! I will revert myself.  Sorry - thanks for the kind note. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Co-operating to make good articles
I request that you relax a little and remember that Wikipedia is about producing accurate encyclopaedia articles, not about fighting other editors. I am rather well qualified to contribute to such, with a first class education from a University which sometimes tops the world's University rankings, and half of my adult life spent in scientific research. I will assume that you, like me, are here to improve the factual accuracy of articles rather than to pursue some personal agenda. You appear to share my personal positive view of the potential for genetic engineering, but articles are about facts, not supporting points of view. Therefore you should be working towards the same end as me. Are you? Elroch (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Elroch. You are jumping in at a difficult time, when we have had a bunch of students from a course in Canada dive bombing the GM articles with college-cramming content  that they have thought about for maybe 2 minutes, and refusing to discuss it.  I love to talk through issues - if you look through the Talk pages of the relevant articles you will see lots of conversations.  I am surprised that somebody who has been around as long as you didn't simply open a discussion on Talk, like experienced editors do... and instead come here and ask me if I am working in bad faith.  For pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, it was because you mysteriously identified an entirely accurate and relevant factual edit as "vandalism". I gather from what you say that this was due to factors independent of the merits of my edit. Assuming this is clear to you, let's not waste more time. Elroch (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't refer to it as vandalism, I referred to it as "unsourced, non-NPOV, editorializing, WP:SOAPBOX content)". I would be happy to discuss why, on the Talk page! Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on RSMED
I also enjoyed your Bullshit section above and feel I am a kindred spirit. You can read my user page as well, not as developed yet.

I was drawn to Wikipedia because I thought I saw bullshit articles. Of course I am changing my views almost every conversation I have on Wikipedia, which is a good sign I am on to something.

You gave a very fair opinion I mostly agree with on RSMED

We need to present in Wikipedia mainstream views on health-related issues. There are some who go so far to say (and I am pretty close to this position myself), that if health-related content cannot be supported by a reliable secondary source it should not be in Wikipedia at all - we are not a medical debating society - we are an encyclopedia presenting knowledge to the public. It is OK to represent significant minorities but they must be presented that way, and only as represented in reliable secondary sources. I don't know how closely you follow the primary biomedical literature but there is a huge percentage of primary studies that turn out not to be replicable. In other words, that are not reliable science. That is one of the big reasons why we need to hew closely to the scientific consensus wherever we can find it.

I am feeling much like you did on Monsanto (ironically my grandmothers first cousin was president of Monsanto well before it got into GMO.) that the articles on chronic lyme are inconsistent with secondary sources, even independent of primary sources. So I got off on the wrong foot because I was/am still learning. I think the literature clearly shows diverging viewpoints, and prominent researchers and now even European countries are starting to peel off the consensus. I am not asking what you think, or what I think, I am asking what WP position is on how this should be reported. It feels like there is an informal policy to use NEJM to decide what is mainstream. If so, everything else is fringe. That is what I am trying to discover.

I already have 3 pretty experienced wikipedians helping me on the talk page, but you can peek if you want and give me advise.

ILADS

I am starting to understand why you love this so much. I hope I get good at it too and can add value.

Bob the goodwin (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dropping by! I will continue to dialog with you at the ILADS article. Jytdog (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Do let me know when to stop. I don't want to waste peoples time.  I sense there are a lot of people pushing agendas, and WP needs to be conservative.  I have learned a lot watching the process, and am very interested in how open information deals with a range of passion.


 * Also, is it OR to cite errors in under-my-skin on their WP site by (for example) demonstrating someone is still publishing when the movie says they have Alzheimers or passed away? That movie is an example of the kind of thing that is terrible for patients.

Bob the goodwin (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am always happy to talk - please feel free!  Anything in Wikipedia needs to be backed by a reliable source, unless it is as obvious as "the sky is blue" (and there are times when people might even challenge that!  and if they do, one must provide a source).  So yes it would be OR to point out the mistakes based on your own authority.  Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is my first 4 hours work on the IDSA rewrite.  Sandbox International Lyme And Associated Diseases Society THANKYOU FOR YOUR BOLD ASSESSMENT OF MY FIRST ATTEMPT.  (I have a neurological disease, so sometimes drift and babble, but that can also be an asset, it is a fascinating story but OR)  I am not saying this is ready to go, I just don't want to spend a month getting a lot of research and getting this perfectly balanced if this group is fringe.  All I need is for the talk-group to decide it is fringe, and then I can move on.  It does not have enough of the IDSA criticism of ILADS in it yet, nor does it have references to the fringe elements of ILADS that need to be debunked (in some cases there may not be good sources to debunk them), and I need to get the non-primary references perfect (If I cannot get perfect secondary references on anything I have in here I will take them out), and I am avoiding the RSMED issues except where it is central to the story of the organization.  I am trying desperately not to coat-hang, and still get accurate information that will be helpful to patients who are getting bounced around the medical world.  I want to write neutrally about inflammatory issues.  This is the flavor I am trying for.  Please save me the time if ILADS should be classified fringe, if you aren't sure I will keep working on it and see if it stands on its own later.  I am slowly improving.  Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I am very close to giving up because I am still so far off base. It may be too hard to get the Lyme war honestly portrayed in Wikipedia without losing NPOV or RSMED as it is inflammatory and deals with the core of medical consensus.  As I learn more about WP editing, I keep seeing my past errors, and assume I will make many more.  It doesn't feel like I am even close on any of my attempts so far.  I think the Lyme war has cost peoples lives, and the suppression of information has damaged medicine.  I can't fix the war and medicine, and maybe I can't fix Wikipedia.  You are a good warrior, so maybe you have ideas.  Please tell me if you think ILADS is fringe.  Please tell me if you think I cannot learn to get this right.  Bob the goodwin (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Please measure twice before cutting once.
Hi, Jytdog, I am dismayed to see that after I announced on an article talk page that I was preparing user space drafts for updating Behavioural genetics and Human behavior genetics (which you could find by observing my last many dozens of use contributions) you then merged both articles without seeking consensus on either article talk page, both of which I watch. Please consider whether this kind of abruptness will achieve the Wikimedia Foundation goal of increasing participation in the project. I'm trying to work with you, but I am not a mind reader. (I submit that you are not a mind reader either, as you have misunderstood my intention about those two articles, both of which I was planning to expand and keep distinct, one as the subarticle of the other.) The place is a mess, but it is not on fire. :)  You have time to confer with other editors, unless you would really rather do everything yourself. (It would be helpful in the extreme to undo the merger of Human behavior genetics and Behavioural genetics. I express no opinion about the other work you have just done, as I have not had time to review it, but it may be that I heartily agree with the other article merge you did. Just remember to look before you leap, which it seems to me must be part of medical training outside of an emergency room context.) Best wishes for a very happy new year with much collaborative improvement of Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry to upset you! As I wrote I have been working on cleaning this up too, from a different direction (I came in via epigenetics).  no reason we cannot work together.  I did ask you to say what your plans are!  I have no desire to unmerge Human behavior genetics and Behavioural genetics - separately they were very bad articles, full of overlapping, OR, and unsourced content; together (and with Psychiatric genetics added) the remaining article is ~almost~ a decently sourced article.  I am very very happy to confer and will stop working now.  What are your plans?? Jytdog (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * another user was also unhappy and undid the merges of the Talk pages, which leaves things in a strange state, so this morning i undid all the merges. Jytdog (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit
I enjoyed the Bullshit section in your user page. I've thought along the same lines for many years. I think cable TV and the internet replacing everyone sitting in front of the same newscast by the same guy of unknown political affiliation at 5:30 pm every night has alot to do with it. My wife listens to me go on about this at least once a week.

I'm also an admirer of how you have effectively dove into controversial subjects, taking minority positions (relative to the editor group as a whole), and been effective, without lowering your standards and retaliating with bullshit out of frustration.

I don't know how long I'll hang around Wikipedia given my lack of patience with such things, but I wanted to stop by to say that it has been good meeting you, even if only online.

--Oh, and just so this isn't a complete brown nose, I think you missed the point on the Elizabeth whats-her-name issue. The only real potential significance of this event in the long run will be if it really does represent the beginning of increased patient activism with regard to access to compassionate use access. By deleting the mention of the melanoma patient, I think you rendered the entire paragraph an undue weight anecdote. :>)

98.155.21.76 (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * :) Thanks for dropping by! I am glad you appreciated the discourse on bullshit - makes me happy to find kindred spirits.  Thanks too for your kind words about Talk tactics; I try hard to work with WP:CIVILITY but still have far far to go to be as good as others are around here.   On the expanded access front.... hard to say.  Every few years such a case comes up.   Started with AIDS activists getting the expanded access ball rolling; in the early 2000s there was the Abigail Alliance;  a few years ago there was the drama over Provenge; now we have Ms. Sloan and the melanoma patient.  There are really serious forces at play that prevent early release of drugs and from my perspective I don't think there will ever be more than a smattering of it.    In any case we want to avoid WP:CRYSTALBALL.... if Sloan turns out in a few years to have been a real turning point, at that time we can go back and write the story.  Thanks again - I hope to see you around! Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have decided to register and can be found under this name. Formerly 98 (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! I look forward to seeing you around! Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Hi, I am not edit warring. I only reverted an IP once. I have addressed the issue on the article talk page. Ochiwar (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I responded there. Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I have folded up shop on ILADS. Thanks for your time.
I would love to exchange emails with you (but not about Lyme). I think we are a lot alike, despite my neurological setbacks. I can send you a couple of links you might be interested in, and also tell you my meta-analysis of my experience at Wikipedia which is overwhelmingly positive. I think you will be positively surprised.

If there is anything you want me to do here, let me know too. I appreciate your energy and passion.

Bob Bob the goodwin (talk) 09:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I am noticing people coming into the rfc on ILADS. The gracious thing for me to do is to fold up shop, but when people come in and ask loaded question like "I see you are asking about a group with a fringe view", or obviously misusing facts it makes the hair stand up in my neck. I respect what people are doing here, but I am left intellectually disagreeing and in awe of the hardened opinions. Do you ever have that feeling that something is strange in the world that there is a group of people with a strong and consistent belief, but you can't find the evidence? Is it as simple as there can only be one medical authority in the world, and even if they sometimes go awry, we must always have one authority? I have spent the last two weeks reading about every other fringe group that IDSA compared chronic-lyme to. Chiropractic and homeopathy have lots of papers that demonstrate pure fringe. I have tried to learn all of the IDSA research on autoimmunity. I have started conversations with some of the advocates who are in fact out of control (I can share on my page, amazing). I have been going through emails from people to see if I could possibly be having any sample bias in my reading of the situation. But I don't see the broad accusation of fringe science against ILADS. I have shadowed some of the edits that other editors have done, and I see the fringe they are stomping down and agree, I spent some time in the middle of the circumcision conflicts to see if any of the fringe influencers had strong points that I could verify. They did not. And yet I cannot see how chronic lyme is in the same camp. Can you help me see my blind spot, so I can let go of Wikipedia and chronic lyme?Bob the goodwin (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Bob - thanks for pinging me. I have come to respect you a lot in our interactions - you have a rare and lovely capacity for honest self-wrestling and for watching out for the integrity of what your mind -  for being careful about what you accept as true; you know that once somebody allow him or herself to understand that X is true,  X becomes part of the reality and if X is not true then all kinds of wierd things happen.  I have been thinking lots about you and about the issues around chronic lyme and will be responding more to you this weekend.   Short story though - the forest I think you might not be seeing for the trees.  1) Diagnostics (and you know this!) are crucial.  Evidence-based medicine goes by what validated diagnostics tell us, and from an evidence-based perspective it is fringe to recommend treating people with antibiotics who do not test positive for the bacteria.  That recommendation of ILADS is really hard to swallow.  I think both sides really want better diagnostic tools.   2) Clinical trials show that a) there is significant risk in treating people with long term antibiotics - bad things happen!!;  b) there is a really big placebo effect (40% is the number I recall) and c) the number of people helped is far from 100%.   IF (and this is a really, really important if) there were not significant risks in the treatment recommendation, I don't think the opposition to the ILADS recommendations would be so intense.  And if the outcomes were wildly successful (something near 100%) even these big risks might be acceptable.   But you have both the significant risks and the weak outcomes.  None of this denies that ~some~ people (e.g. the youtube girl) recover after long-term antibiotics.  We just don't know why, and cannot sacrifice the many for the few. 3) I think both sides are very sensitive to the fact that people diagnosed by ILADS-trained people with chronic lyme are suffering and vulnerable.  The responses of the two sides to that suffering and vulnerability are very different!  But I think anybody who calls "bad faith" on the other side is missing the heart of the issues here.  Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for answering my question. I am actually not new inability to understand others hardened opinions. I often see things differently.  I can guarantee you that I see no bad faith, except when I am most sick.  I think the war is what bugs me, plus that my personal experiences are so at odds with the mainstream rhetoric.  I liked your explanation a lot.  I will say that there are many cases where medicine is not as principled as you state.  But this is a nitpick.  For me it is the aggressiveness of the war that I believe has hardened positions on both sides, and these great men seemed boxed in, and feel no obligation to fix what they consider an externality that they did not create and which they see as destructive.  I think they might even be right, but when the CDC actively tries to kill what seems to be a perfect diagnostic - even if they are scoring on technical accuracy - I feel like the victim of something that feels like abuse of science, and not real science.  Even then, I want to understand.  If I understand, then I can help.  I have gotten two activists to write sincere letters of apologies to researchers, because without unbounded researchers the war will never end.  I don't want to be right.  I just want nobody else to walk in my shoes.


 * The cure rate at my stage is probably about 50%, maybe less. But caught earlier it is much higher.  It won't be cured with antibiotics in the long run.  I think it will be cured with needle injected (or transdermal) chemicals that break down the biofilms and dislodge spirochetes from tissue.  Our immune systems are great at killing free floating bacteria.Bob the goodwin (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I also wrote to the LA coroner today. That woman who jumped off the building was not acting much better than I did the day after my surgery.  Neuroborrealis is a unique and conspicuous psychiatric illness that is growing 20% a year.Bob the goodwin (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I followed up at your comment on the risks of antibiotics and found this "Concerns regarding the risk of macrolides to induce arrhythmia have been raised. Recent FDA guidelines changes has recommended caution in patients with risk factors such as long QT syndrome, bradycardia, hypokalemia, or hypomagnesemia. Ototoxicity is another concern" Each one of these is easily monitored and is less risky than madness.  Do you have other evidence you were referring to?  I had searched several times in the past, and had concluded the largest risk was the general overuse of antibiotics, not to the specific user. Bob the goodwin (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I was searching for a really clean example of a nitpick from earlier. I believe auto-immune diseases are treated with steroids and are clinically diagnosed, and have zero cure rate.  Steroids are very dangerous to those of us with Borrelia who both have overlapping symptoms of auto-immune disease and who were not yet infected in the brain.  My nitpick is not to say that medicine is irresponsible, but to say that there is clinical range in non-controversial fields.Bob the goodwin (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Now I know I am abusing your patience. But I thought I would throw another wild thought or two into the mix. | post surgery psychosis <- this link has a lot of overlap with my personal experience 3 months ago (except the naked part, but other actions of mine were almost as shocking), and anecdotally neuroborrealis is amplified by pro-inflammatory events, such as surgery.  With 300,000 cases (per CDC) of Lyme infection, 10% treated, and 12-14% of untreated known to progress to neuro, doesn't it stand to reason that we have 40,000 cases of neuroborrealis in the US, and given the IDSA guidelines isn't it impossible to get a diagnosis of neuroborrealis?  Given that Columbia had 3,000 candidates in NYC supportive of this possibility?Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * the [ANA recommendation http://www.neurology.org/content/69/1/91.long] defines neuroborrealis as "Lyme disease affecting the nervous system" and points to this as the recommended way to diagnose it. So I don't understand... Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am still trying to get you to change my mind, and I am not trying to change yours. Unfortunately the act of honest debate is the only way possible, and is in fact symmetrical.  So you are kind to help me with an open mind, and with no incentive except a personal desire to understand.  It is with that respect I have for you that keeps bringing me back.Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Monarch populations
Hi. You reverted my edit because it was not relevant to Bt? The paragraph, before my edit, was using the increase of Monarch populations as a piece of evidence that Bt crops were not affecting insect populations. In what possible way could the decline of Monarch populations then not be relevant information in this article? Davidresseguie (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for talking! Your questions is phrased like a rhetorical question instead of a real question, but I will answer anyway.  this was what you added with edit note "Monarch populations are on a steady decline. The reference to the 2002 study is really out of date and probably warrants removal." and  is the source you brought.    I reverted your addition in this dif with edit note "while important, not relevant to this paragraph which is about Bt protein. source says nothing about Bt."  As I said there, the decline of the monarch is tragic.  However, as the paragraph in which you placed this stated, Bt does not harm butterflies, and the source you brought does not mention Bt in the reasons for the decline. Bt has nothing to do with the decline.  I do see your point about the statement in the paragraph about butterfly populations increasing in 2002, as no longer true, and how that rings false and harsh today, when they are decreasing.   I just deleted the phrase in the article, " and noted that despite large-scale planting of GM crops, the butterfly's population is increasing" as it is a red herring. Thanks again for talking.  Jytdog (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see
User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Depression (mood)
I didn't know using bold meant other than to emphasize a word. I have removed the bold. The current text in Treatment is suggestive, and needs to be corrected to include natural approaches.32cllou (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have asked you this now three times - please read WP:BRD. If you read it, you will see that the term "bold" is used in the sense of WP:BOLD - don't be afraid to edit - boldly make changes.  And please follow what BRD says - if you are Bold and make a change, and are Reverted, Discuss -- don't edit war.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you please move your comment?
Hi, Jytdog.

Could you please move your comment on the talk page? I did move it so that it didn't get in the way of the organization of the page I'm trying to maintain, but you reverted my change. Could you please move it to the bottom discussion area? If you'd like me to move my comment as well that you were rresponding to, I'm happy to do that. I really appreciate it. Thanks. CJ (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Cjrhoads - if you want to move your comment to which I was responding, and mine, together, I am fine with that. Thanks for asking! Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. CJ (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Going overboard?
Jytdog - I just got done writing a very appreciate paragraph about you on my talk page, only to find out that you have been decimating the Qigong article and undoing the changes that I undid that you did without any discussion earlier. Don't you think that's unacceptable? AND THEN accusing me of conflict of interest when you know full well there is no conflict of interest. I've been dealing with you in complete good faith, and you have been underhandedly making changes without any regard for anyone else's opinion!

I'm going to assume that your own enthusiasm just got the best of you. I would ask that you would put the information back on the page that you deleted, and stop acting like the Qigong page is your personal property. You are not the only editor here. There are many opinions, and it is unfair for you, or me, or anyone else to take on the role of the sole expert in this field. Please stop. CJ (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * decimating? you exaggerate. i removed one short paragraph.  in any case I opened a section in talk to discuss it when I did it.  Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * and i reject the allegation in your edit note that anything i did was for retaliation. i am working to improve the article; which has nothing to do with you per se. Again you should not go down the road of personalizing this or attributing bad faith to me. my suggestion that you have COI or WP:ADVOCACY issues is solidly based on wikipedia guidelines as I described on your Talk page; it is one of the few areas where things do get personal and i know that is uncomfortable, and am sorry about that. but getting defensive and going on the attack as you are doing, is just about 100% the wrong reaction in this situation. i reject the allegation that I am WP:OWNing the article as well. i am talking with you and everybody. this was a very ill-advised message. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

tendentious and IDHT. you should no longer assume her enthusiasm got the better of her. You have spent far too much time and effort, and you should draw a line somewhere. This, of course is only a suggestion. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I am frustrated beyond belief by this whole thing. She has gone so far outside the envelope that even the US Postal Service could not deliver. Any of the appropriate drama boards would deal with her, as any case based on her behaviour would be open and shut. However, as you appear not to want to take that route at the moment, and I have never done such a thing, except for a failed edit warring one, I am reluctant to even try. There is no need for you to reply to this comment. regards -Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Two quick things
I put a new section in my talk page for you on informationalism.

Some people have been working to put my sandbox into a Wikipedia page called Lyme "wars". I am still scared of being bitten as a new editor, and also am still worried that I am wrong, and this should not be in Wikipedia. But I did not fully agree with your arguments that antibiotics are dangerous, and only a nearly 100% cure rate would justify them, so am still believing that this is not a fringe view, but I thought your should weigh in.Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, I never said that antibiotics would have to be 100% successful to be recommended - they would have to be safe enough and effective enough in the given population to be recommended (both things). Every approved or recommended drugs hurts at least some people, some, and helps only some people.  It is about safe enough and effective enough, in enough people.  With the significant risk of long term antibiotic use (especially from the indwelling catheters that are used) you would have to have significant efficacy.   I think I also said that better diagnostics would be essential.  If we can identify a subpopulation with a reliable diagnostic that long-term antibiotics had a very high cure rate in, that would be something mainstream medicine would recommend. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I guess I put words in your mouth you didn't say. I thought that was what you meant, and I appreciate the clarification.Bob the goodwin (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to spam your talk page again. I need your advice on Lyme "wars" talk page. None of the content was put up by me, but by more experienced editors building from my sandbox. One of them found it by reading our discussion on my talk page! Anyway, I think there is a discussion brewing that I do not fully understand. It feels like a desire to make the article MEDRS, which would make it a bigger target, but maybe I am misunderstanding. I got convinced by another experienced editor to have him work on this, but am feeling again like it was a mistake.Bob the goodwin (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed there was lots of activity but have not spent time seeing what is going on. I will come by! Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I invented a pulse oximeter in 2008 that diagnosed sleep apnea, as I know some of the luminaries in the field. I decided my FDA approval costs could not be recovered unless it was bundled as a free diagnostic service with follow-up sleep apnea equipment. I also discovered that the equipment providers control the committee that sets the insurance codes for apnea devices. So I handed out my prototypes free to everyone influential I could find at a medical device conference instead. Maybe I helped after all! The politics of medicine is fascinating, and under-reported.Bob the goodwin (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Did you file a patent application and if so did it publish?  If so I would be interested to read it!   You, you being a medical device entrepreneur, have you thought about hunting for promising Lyme diagnostics, licensing them, and raising money to get them validated/approved/reimbursed?  Seems right down your alley. :) Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I filed a pre-patent, and then let it expire. My goal was to get sleep apnea treated over the counter, because there is such high mortality, low diagnosis and safe and potentially inexpensive treatment.  My partners father-in law was an early researcher physician and entrepreneur in the field.  I produced low cost equipment for the whole pipeline of diagnostics and treatment.  I pulled the plug once I understood the obstacles to getting approvals and who controlled the parts of the process.  So I learned that even high value, low cost and low risk medical issues have hidden gates.  I don't necessarily think this is bad, but it is not a good place for an entrepreneur.Bob the goodwin (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have had conversations with some of the people trying to raise money for research. I am having a phone conversation with an executive at Blackstone next week who has funded Columbia Lyme and also Sapi.  He believes that diagnostics are key.  The problem I am seeing, is that there exists a good diagnostic today that uses the gold standard of Culture.  A CDC researcher who is a long time critic of chronic Lyme published a paper debunking the test, but my reading is that she was doing science by press release.  It would cost a few thousand dollars to prove the test didn't work, because it is publicly available.  I am convinced of good intentions, but it is unfathomable to me that someone would publish a paper and produce a test that is claimed to be highly reliable, and the mainstream would do nothing but ridicule it.  I am either missing something fundamental, or there is an ocean of bad blood that has ruined the scientific enterprise.  I would drink tick blood if I could prove or disprove the test worked.  Without confidence in the transparency of the system, you cannot afford to invent.Bob the goodwin (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If I had to guess, I would say the mainstream would be far more impressed with a non antibiotic cure, which I think is very possible, and I am discussing this with the Blackstone guy. The peptic ulcer controversy is quite interesting and parallel.  I think the mental resistance (pure guess) to chronic Lyme is similar to the resistance to the peptic ulcer bacteria.  Science did not believe that bacteria were this adaptive.  I have a long list of chemicals in my mind I would like to put into a mega-mouse experiment factory.  The peptic ulcer wars were won because of a loop hole and a sin.  You cannot experiment on humans wantonly.  But you also can't stop someone from experimenting on themselves (he did).  Then he went to the sensationalist press with it to fight the mainstream.  He got a Nobel prize.  Bob the goodwin (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * yes the ulcer story is really great - turned a lot of ideas on their head. Funny it took all this time for interest in other gut bacteria to really catch on - now the microbiome is all over the place.  So great that you are using your medical device savvy and contacts to try to move the Lyme field forward.  As you well know, at the end of the day great clinical trial data will be essential - that will be the key to getting reimbursement and getting doctors to use it, and to FDA approval (the least hard of the three).  Designing that trial will be very hard.   I did some searching for patents and postings of inventions and there are so many approaches being proposed.  Exciting.  Jytdog (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Questions on FTC rules
Hi Jytdog. I saw that you "thanked" me for my edit here and was participating in the discussion. I wanted to make sure you knew that I am a frequent COI contributor myself (if you hover of the GA icons on my user page for example, some will say "contributed with a COI"). I think most if not all the other users on that page know already, including Smallbones who kept pinging me asking for my input, but I didn't go into any long-winded disclosure or anything, so I wanted to make sure it wasn't something that surprised you later on.

The idea of legal compliance is a big part of how I persuade companies that an ethical approach is best, because companies comply with the law by de-facto, and how I help PR agencies who are under pressure by their clients to make COI edits, etc., so it's something I'm very involved in and I've talked to a lot of lawyers about it who specialize in it.

Anyways, just wanted to make sure you knew that I wasn't completely another regular volunteer. CorporateM (Talk) 04:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:CorporateM.  Thanks for your note!  I am aware of you and watched your contributions in the big wave of COI policy proposals late last year with great interest.  Very interesting to hear your perspective on these legal issues, as one who speaks with companies that manage FTC concerns in the real world.  Would be interesting to have a beer and hear stories about that. The example I thanked you for was the closest I have seen yet, but rhere is really nothing like Wikipedia out there, I think. ... your example would have been really relevant had Amazon itself gotten in the soup!  Anyway, pleasure to meet you and thanks again for saying hi. Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The biggest way Wikipedia differs from other websites is that we lack the concept of authorship entirely, which is different from a review site or forum where each post has a distinct author. However, there are clear cases. For example, I've spoken to three clients of a specific paid editor, but I notice here on Wikipedia he/she keeps insisting they do not have a financial connection and basically getting away with it - writing promotional articles on non-notable companies for pay while pretending to be a crowd-sourced participant. It's that kind of blatant deceit that I think is most clearly actionable. Our Talk pages are basically just like a forum, where each post has a single distinct author and sockpuppeting to astroturf discussions is a clear traditional use of the FTC's guides.


 * Anyways, I'll take you up on the beer if you are ever in Raleigh (or at the next Wikimania in the US), except I'm not a beer guy, so I'll have a vodka 7 ;-)


 * Oh btw, I read your userpage comments about needing a clearer COI guideline. Some folks at helpdesk and what not use a simpler alternative I wrote for user-space, if you ever find it useful or whatnot.


 * CorporateM (Talk) 17:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * vodka is good :) on my userpage i actually wish for a policy, not just a better guideline.  I do like the content in your essay; the thing we lack is a) clarity in what the problem is and what appropriate remedies are & are not and b) the force of policy behind that clarity, so that those who act inappropriately (people with a COI, and people overzealous in pursuing suspected COI) know the consequences.   I hear you on people who outright lie... but no regulation or policy can handle someone willfully out to break it. and yes the lack of distinct authorship is one of our biggest hurdles - that came up again and again during flurry of policy proposals!  anyway thanks again for talking! Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)