User talk:Pottinger's cats

N o f o rmation Talk  06:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC) N o f o rmation Talk  06:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank You!
Dear Pottinger's Cats,

On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of people who use and love EFT, thank-you for standing up to the wiki-editors that ignore the evidence that doesn't match their preconceived ideas. It pains me that they claim to be scientific!

Best wishes,

Alex Kent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Charles Kent (talk • contribs) 12:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012
Your recent editing history at Megavitamin therapy‎ shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. N o f o rmation Talk  09:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll keep this in mind. Thank you.Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Raw Milk talk page:
I posted this to the Raw Milk talk page. In case you missed it:

Talk pages are not a forum. See WP:NOTAFORUM. You can post specific suggestions for improving this article. Citations must come from third party reliable sources. See WP:RELIABLE --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Genetically modified food, you may be blocked from editing.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your recent edits have not been discussions of the topics at hand, but rather have been verbose soapboxing. Please remember that article talkpages are for discussion of proposed improvements to articles, not general discussion or promotion of personal views for or against a subject.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have warned this editor of the same on multiple occasions and just left one more stern warning at Talk:Vaccine controversies. If it happens again I plan on taking it to WP:ANI.  N o f o rmation  Talk  20:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I will keep that in mind for the articles, however (with the exception of the clip in the end), I fail to see how the following is soapboxing, and believe that it is relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Water_fluoridation_controversy&diff=471378316&oldid=471302654
 * You may consider this a final warning: if you post lengthy polemics concerning your beliefs to article talk pages, they will be removed and you may be blocked from editing.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a free web page for your beliefs
I don't believe you are interested in improving our articles. Instead, you are treating our article talk pages as a free web page in which to publish your views and to engage in discussion on them, with the aim of convincing other editors. Our Talk page guidelines make it clear they are not "to be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." They also make it clear that "rants about the article subject" are commonly and uncontroversially deleted. Please do not continue to abuse our talk pages. Your posts will be deleted. If you continue this, I shall ask an admin to block your account. Colin°Talk 08:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be going through old sections on talkpages I made before. I have since refrained from doing that.Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, no. Your post of this morning to Talk:Vaccine controversies breaks the rules. You cite a primary study from 14 years ago to argue this "corroborate[s] Wakefield". Then you cite the Daily Mail as further support of Wakfield's research. The talk page is not for you to convince us or anyone else of Wakefield's research. What do the experts make of that issue when writing reviews or other professional secondary literature on the subject of vaccine safety -- that's all that Wikipedia cares about. Once you've found such appropriate sources we can discuss any changes to the article. If you want to post further on the article talk page, take some section of the article and say what text you would change or add, and then give a source or several that support it -- provided those sources meet our policy and guidelines. If you can't do that, don't post. Colin°Talk 10:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Realizing that shortly after I made that post (and before you gave your most recent reply), I stated, on that talkpage, "I will not be using the archive list as a source. I merely stated that as a response. I'm finished with this discussion until I find modern meta-analyses on the subject of vaccines. I was merely responding to points others made."Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Your edits to Energy medicine continue to damage Wikipedia. You can't just delete the bits of an article you disagree with. Or take a fact you disagree with and stick "However,...." followed by some tangentially related, or indeed unrelated, discovery from which you draw conclusions or expect the reader to. The bit about research on bioelectrical signals in embryonic tadpole being used to explain why energy medicine must be correct was one of the most interested edits I've seen in a while. This sort of nonsense is why WP:MEDRS disapproves of citing primary research or the lay press reporting of such. The laws of physics and the laws of Wikipedia are important. Breaking both of them at the same time isn't a good idea. Colin°Talk 15:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It has relevance to veritable energy medicine claims - showing why electrotherapy might work - and it does: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16552832
 * Electrotherapy has been discussed at length in "Healing is Voltage" by Dr. Jerry L. Tennant. It was even noted in a recent "New Scientist" article, so it's hardly a "fringe" view. It's not discussed in this country because it's not patentable, and because most of the research is in Russian: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125624.400-to-heal-a-wound-turn-up-the-voltage.html
 * Regarding the subtle energy medicine controversy - first - intention caused action at a distance has been proven: http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/1997-correlations-random-binary-sequences-12-year-review.pdf
 * Also, there are a plethora of studies showing the efficacy of energy medicine, including distance healing: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/therapeutic-action/energy-medicine
 * And as for acupuncture, a very recent Cochrane review has shown regular acupuncture to be superior to sham acupuncture - in this case for post-operative nausea and vomiting, with efficacy similar to antiemetic drugs. This is only one example of the supporting studies: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19370583
 * With that said, I apologize for my previous behavior here. I immaturely believed myself to be at war with "mainstream ignorance", and acted from that position, rather than adding high quality content to articles.Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see my recent addition to the talk page on that article. Your most recent comment is uncalled for and abusive.Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What's uncalled for are your constant attempts at pushing a fringe POV on a website that expressly forbids it via multiple policies, of you have been made aware multiple times.  N o f o rmation  Talk  06:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Log in EVERY time. Not a newbie.
You are not a newbie. You've been here for many years and should know better than to use multiple accounts. Each IP edit counts as a separate account, so log in EVERY time you edit. Your edit history should be collected under ONE account, "Pottinger's cats". -- Brangifer (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ketogenic diet
Please review WP:MEDRS for information about sourcing medical articles, WP:OWN for information about discussing edits on talk, and WP:LEAD for information about how to build the lead of an article. I have removed the collection of nonWP:MEDRS-compliant sources that you added to the lead of a Featured article. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed primary sources, kept this secondary source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3321471/Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

3RR warning
Your recent editing history at Orthomolecular medicine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. Mathsci (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not use my own article, I used a previous article that lacked the falsehoods and bias of the current article. I will refute the current article using WP:MEDRS compliant sources as soon as possible.Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

trust of regulators
Thanks for your note and for your kind desire to help me! That is really very nice of you. to respond... (you can reply here, if you like, so we can have an actual conversation.)

you wrote "I wish that regulators really were independent, but there is demonstrable corporate control of policy in this realm. The following UK Guardian article shows the extent of this, that a US embassy cable recommended drawing up list of countries for 'retaliation' over opposition to genetic modification: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops"
 * diplomats are not regulators, and regulators in the EU have approved several GM crops that politicians (not regulators) have blocked from production.  That stuff has nothing to do with regulators - it has to do with politics.  regulators and politicians are different animals, and live in different worlds.  Do you see what I mean?Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

you wrote "If you want a challenge to your views on this, see the following, particularly chapter 2, regarding the case of Putzai: http://www.scribd.com/doc/64711742/Seeds-of-Destruction
 * two responses:

1) I read Seeds of Destruction and Food Inc and have watched the World According to Monsanto and the rest - they all disappointed me greatly. When I started the project I was actually sympathetic and wanted to understand why people were so angry.  As I dug and dug I found lie after lie and exaggeration after exaggeration.  Really disappointing to me.  And I mean REALLY.  As the environmental left has been so science-based on the global warming thing, the level of science-ignoring, and repetition of the same distortions over and over, that I keep finding in the anti-GM movement really shocked me at first... now it just like a dull headache of sadness.  Like your conflation above, of what regulators do and what politicians do.  And your  conviction that the conflation is real, and not only real, but very very important, to the point where you actually took the time and effort to reach out and communicate it to me... it is really kind of mind blowing to me. Just makes me exhale long and slow. I don't know if you see what i mean or not. I really do appreciate the kindness in your reaching out to me, I really do.Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

2) IMO, Putzai screwed up bigtime by going to the public with his findings before finishing the science and publishing it. He was rightfully hit with a sh*tstorm for doing that - making very strong and inflammatory statements based on his preliminary research (he wasn't ready to publish for a good long while after his remarks!) -- this runs deeply, deeply, counter to the scientific process of generating knowledge.  It is too bad he comported himself that way.  As it is, the paper he finally submitted was crap.  The whole thing was a shame. Tragic.  Makes me sad.Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example of the problems you found with "Seeds of Destruction" (are you sure you're not confusing it with "Seeds of Deception"?)Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, in the description of the genesis of biotech regulation in the first few pages, engdahl talks only about ag biotech and doesn't mention the rest of the biotech industry (human drugs, enzymes for manufacturing all sorts of things).  The Reagan/Bush administrations were very interested in the whole industry and the framework those administrations developed (http://usbiotechreg.epa.gov/usbiotechreg/) laid the groundwork for the entire industry.  Also, Monsanto didn't get heavily into ag biotech until the early to mid 1990s - Engdahl talks like they were already as committed in the early 1980s.  The description of the regulatory regime on pp5 and 6 is inaccurate.   The description of 'substantial equivalence' is wrong. He calls the gene gun a "gene cannon" - (much more inflammatory name, right?) And the overall tone is not one of reason and scholarship but rather is panting and overheated - written to rile you up, not teach useful information.  These are all things  that drive me up all the wall - especially the "tearing the cover off the secrets" tone when mostly what he is doing is lying to you.  I am sorry that you think this book has useful information in it.Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The term Gene Cannon was not Engdahl's invention. It is cited in relevant literature prior to the publication of his book: http://www.ut.ee/biodida/eibe/pdf/Unit09EN.pdf It is also cited at the following biotech website: http://www.bio-pro.de/glossar/index.html?action=id&id=63&lang=en


 * on the gene gun thing, you are missing my point.
 * I agree with your point on this, but my point is that engdahl didn't invent out of thin air what he wrote (e.g. - the points below regarding regulation come from Claire Hope Cummings)Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The parts you critique at the beginning of the book from from the following New York times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/25/business/25FOOD.html?pagewanted=allPottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * NY Times article: ""There were no products at the time," Leonard Guarraia, a former Monsanto executive who attended the Bush meeting, recalled in a recent interview. "But we bugged him for regulation. We told him that we have to be regulated."" and here is your friend's version: " The purpose... was to discuss the "deregulation" of the emerging biotech industry". I would call that, completely opposite of the NY times version.
 * My mistake. His quote, from the NY Times, is of the following paragraph: ""The reforms we announce today will speed up and simplify the process of bringing better agricultural products, developed through biotech, to consumers, food processors and farmers," Mr. Quayle told a crowd of executives and reporters in the Indian Treaty Room of the Old Executive Office Building. "We will ensure that biotech products will receive the same oversight as other products, instead of being hampered by unnecessary regulation.""
 * Just so you know this, my experience with anti-GMO people is that they are generally sloppy. I have spent hours trying to verify things that turn out to be BS.  You have done this twice now, first with respect to the wikileaks thing, and now here.  I would appreciate it if you would not waste my time reading and responding to things that are not on point, that do not show me, what you want to show.  Please correspond with care.  Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The source he cites for the deregulation argument is not that article, but Claire Hope Cummings: http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry66f7.html?recid=1736


 * I am sorry, where did I say anything about a "deregulation argument"?Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Engdahl's problems with substantial equivalence - noting that it is based on the idea that "in its chemical composition and nutritional value, it [GMO food] was "substantially" the same as the natural plant", and that this approach was wrong,
 * This is a fundamental misunderstanding of "substantial equivalence" that is shared by almost every anti-GMO person I speak with. One of the distortions that is passed around among you all endlessly.  Would you please tell me what regulatory documents have you actually read? Real question.  Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

is supported by the Nature Paper "Beyond substantial Equivalence", which notes that it "should be abandoned in favour of one that includes biological, toxicological and immunological tests rather than merely chemical ones.". The Nature paper is here http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6753/full/401525a0.html, and can be read here: http://www.greenpeace.org.br/transgenicos/pdf/beyond_substantial_equivalence.pdfPottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I have read that and it also fundamentally mis-states the doctrine. Also, it is not a "paper" it is an opinion piece, as it clearly states. Have you read the responses to it that Nature published?  And of course the actual  regulatory documents that embody the concept?  Those are real questions - please respond.Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As for your text below, I have no idea why you sent to it to me. Worse, you are not trying to talk with me at all - you are not responding to most of what I write. Which you are free to do - and I am free to not participate. So I am done! Again, thanks for reaching out to me, and have a great day.Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The text below deals with the arguments you have raised in general, and not with the book under examination.Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's 2 items that address your criticisms in General: 1) http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/60-why-genetically-engineered-food-is-dangerous-new-report-by-genetic-engineers 2) http://www.biointegrity.org/list.html Also, you dismissed horizontal gene transfer with GM foods as irrelevant (in the organic food talk page). This is totally relevant. It is actually the Achilles heel of the pro-GM food movement, since it means that GM foods genetically modify the consumers of these foods, and are an ecological contaminant.Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Look PotCat - you brought up the regulator thing and tried to use the wikileaks cable to show me they are corrupt. I responded, you said nothing. You asked what I thought was BS about the book, I told you, and you argued with a couple of my points and said nothing about the rest. And then you bring in new stuff. You are not trying to learn about how I think or even have a real conversation, you are just trying to prove to me that GMOs are evil and everything is corrupt. This is not interesting to me. A real conversation is interesting, where you say something, I respond to that, you respond to what I said, and so on. Have a great day.Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The wikileaks cable shows the extreme political clout of the GMO pushers. This link: http://www.biointegrity.org/list.html
 * shows regulatory problems.Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, so to be clear, the wikileaks cable thing has nothing to do with regulators. agreed?Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * With respect to the documents at the other site, did you actually read this one? http://www.biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/01/01.pdf   What is your take on it?Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it states, "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks." Some of these risks are outlined in the various documents. An overview of this is here: http://www.biointegrity.org/FDADeception.html
 * One thing at a time, let's really look at that document. Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, the document is not complete, which is unfortunate. For a center concerned with "integrity", I find it a bit disconcerting that they offer an incomplete document as some sort of evidence - and don't even comment on the incompleteness.  I wonder what she says on the last pages?   Not knowing that, one has to be careful about drawing conclusions from the document.   I note also that the "mindfully.org" site has this memo too, in html (http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Dr-Linda-Kahl-FDA.htm) and it doesn't even show that the memo is incomplete.   This is exactly the kind of sloppiness I keep finding among the anti-GM community.   If I were using this document to support an argument, I would definitely make note of the incompleteness. Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Her main point. given in paragraphs 1 and 2, is that by putting the emphasis on regulating the product and not the process, two things happen: 1) first new products that are genetically modified by breeding now seem to be regulated, and they never were before (which is upsetting to traditional plant breeders) and 2) the different risks from the process of genetic engineering are not addressed.   That is her key point Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * With respect to the different risks from the process of genetic engineering, she says that we are not sure - scientifically -- about what they are;  they have not been studied enough to be quantified and scientists are (usually) very hesitant to draw conclusions when they have insufficient data (unlike our friend Seralini in his 2012 article).  She writes - "for all we know, the risks may be lower for genetically engineered foods" Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In Paragraph 3, she then goes on to talk about how policy is being developed. She writes that it seems clear that policy makers are seeking scientists' input.   What is going on here?  We lack some context.  A couple of things.  First, policy is always created by politicians - it is not created by regulators.   Regulators follow the policy that the government sets out.  This article is super-useful for understanding how US biotechnology policy came into being: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2236&context=bclr.  I strongly recommend that you read it (I'll call it the "history article" from now on).    Linda's memo dates from 1982.  In the history article on page 738, we see that "Thus, through a series of working groups and policy statements begun in the mid 1980s, the Reagan and Bush Administrations developed three tenets of U.S. policy designed to ensure the development of the industry: (1) U.S. policy would focus on the product of GM techniques, not the process itself, (2) only regulation grounded in verifiable scientific risks would be tolerated, and (3) GM products are on a continuum with existing products and, therefore, existing statutes are sufficient to review the products. Within these tenets, industry would be encouraged to continue its rapid pace of development without regulatory impediments."  Linda's memo grows out of those "working groups" and she is commenting on the first point there.  Which is just so cool!  We get to see SOME of the internal conversations from that time.  Just very cool, from a historiography perspective.  Again, there were clearly tons of other documents (I have not seen, for example, the document on which she is commenting, or other people's memos -- we have no idea how she fit into the conversation, what "side" if any she was on)  It is clear that she herself, and other scientists, were frustrated because, again, as scientists they just lacked data to draw general conclusions -- she expresses a really lovely integrity here -- she says "are we asking scientific experts to generate a basis for this policy statement  in the absence of any data?"  What she is saying, very very clearly, is that she cannot draw any conclusions, and it appears, she hopes her bosses are not doing this crazy thing.  (And so it is just plain wrong from you and other anti-GM folks to use her as evidence that there ARE terrible risks).  By the way, her bosses were NOT looking to base policy purely on the science.  Policy is never purely based on science;  it always takes many other factors into mind. Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * still in paragraph 3 I want to call your attention to 3b.  It is too long to copy/paste here  but please read it now.  ....  Now, it is clear that some of the other commentors have big worries about GE food.   In this section 3b, Linda makes it clear that herself believes that an entire chain of terrible things would all (her emphasis in the memo) have to happen, in order for a GE food to actually be harmful.    In other words, although she doesn't have data to back it up, as far as she can see, looking at the process, the chances of there being an actual public health risk from GE food are tiny.   This is the most interesting part of the memo, for sure. Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Paragraph 3c is another comment on the process of generating the memo... she wonders who is helping generate this and why various folks are not involved yet. Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Paragraph 4, she offers a suggestion to make it easier to get GE foods on the market and to try to generate a policy framework that non-schizophrenically (to use her language) deals with all genetic modifications, be they made by traditional breeding or GE.  Again, this is a pretty pro-GE statement.  I don't know where she ends up, in this memo or down the line, but the evidence from this document is that she herself cannot speak to the riskiness of GE food per se, but that she doesn't think GE food is likely to be very risky. Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Paragraphs 5 and 6 are minor but interesting points. Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, the memo is cut off so we have no idea where she ends up - how the final points she wanted to make, are summed up by her. And again, I find it really horrible from a scholarly perspective that the document is incomplete and that the citing source doesn't bother to note that.    Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So what do you make of all that? Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Below, you again pile on all kinds of additional stuff, which I am not going to deal with and indeed cannot -- I find it bizarre and a bit rude that you keep doing that. Again, this is what I mean by the sheer, overwhelming sloppiness of the anti-GM people.  Where is the integrity, the careful thinking that leads to a reasonable conclusion?  You don't seem to have actually read and thought about all these things you keep throwing at me and others on Wikipedia.  You seem to a) believe that GM food is bad; and b)  believe that all these sources "prove" that.  I am happy to keep talking to you but I am rigorous and this will be a careful, rigorous discussion.  We will read things with an open mind and see what conclusions can be drawn from them.   I am, by the way, grateful that you introduced me to the biointegrity site -- there is interesting information there. Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have limited time and this will probably be long and drawn out. I am not able to respond to everything you have written now. I encourage you to view all the documents for now.Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Everybody has limited time.  Which is one reason why you shouldn't dump 20 sources on everybody that you haven't thought though carefully yourself.  btw I have read almost everything you posted before -- they are the same sources everybody in the anti-GM uses.Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Remember also, as I outlined in the organic food talk page:
 * in the October 25, 1998 New York Times Magazine article Playing God in the Garden, Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications, was quoted as saying "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job".
 * Yet the FDA's Statement of Policy - Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties states that "Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.": http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/Biotechnology/ucm096095.htm
 * In a report in the International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food entitled "The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science – Part 1: The Development of a Flawed Enterprise", Don Lotter noted that "the FDA does not test the products for safety (Mellon and Rissler, 2003). The regulators rely ‘almost exclusively on information provided by the biotech crop developer, and those data are not published in journals or subjected to peer review’ (Friends of the Earth, 2004)."
 * He also noted, "Despite the mutation problems with plant transgenics, thorough studies on the toxicology of transgenic foods are few. Domingo surveyed the literature on toxicology studies in a 2007 review article in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, and wrote that it is ‘quite amazing to note’ the paucity of toxicology studies on transgenic foods, and asks ‘where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies involved in commercial GM foods?’ (Domingo, 2007)."
 * He also noted, "Commenting on the lack of safety data on transgenic foods in the Journal of Medicinal Food, David Schubert, head of the Cellular neurobiology Laboratory at the Salk Institute in California, wrote in 2008:
 * There are, in fact, no data comparing the food safety profiles of GM versus conventional breeding, and the ubiquitous argument that ‘since there is no evidence that GM products make people sick, they are safe’ is both illogical and false. there are, again, simply no data or even valid assays to support this contention. Without proper epidemiological studies, most types of harm will not be detected, and no such studies have been conducted (Schubert, 2008).": http://www.ijsaf.org/archive/16/1/lotter1.pdfPottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not going to deal with horizontal gene transfer nor the earthopensouorce thing yet. There are too many open items - when we close some I will address these. Thanks for being more responsive.Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen you reply to things here on the Organic Food talk page since Friday. I will assume that you have moved on to other things.  Have a great day.Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have limited time. I may come back in a week or so.Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Problems with alt-med promotion
This is coatrack. Just because blue-green algae might be effective in one context (although the sourcing is not great) does not mean that we need to promote that context on a page about a quack who uses blue-green algae for something different. bobrayner (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Accepted.Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD
It is common practice on Wikipedia that after you are WP:BOLD and reverted, you start a discussion on the talk page. Your changes have been challenged, it is your responsibility to discuss to get consensus for these changes rather than edit warring to get them in the article. Yobol (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013
Your recent editing history at Emotional Freedom Techniques shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. ''I'm not commenting on the quality of the sources but only the editing behavior. Look into Wikipedia's dispute resolution venues. Edit warring won't end well.''  13:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

On the quality of your editing
From what I can see, you don't have even a slight understanding of the relevant policies (WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS), or at least no interest in learning and following them. Instead you're here at Wikipedia to set the record straight. I don't see any outcome other than your being blocked or banned. Editors have been extremely patient with you, and have pointed out the problems over and over. Do you think you can continue editing as you have been doing? --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have followed WP:MEDRS on numerous articles - like Emotional Freedom Techniques, with my articles using sources that were more meders compliant than those of the people who reverted my edits on this.Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, "Do you think you can continue editing as you have been doing?" --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I replied to your comments on the relevant noticeboard, and I think you'll find my statements agreeable.Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reverting the worst of the edits. I've gone ahead and removed the rest, leaving only the disputed bit about highlighting the FDA and Fuhrman.
 * I hope the other disputes will be resolved in a similar manner. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The only problem with those edits on the WAPF page was that they synthesized primary sources.Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean. You are, of course, making syn problems yourself, again. Guess you've answered my question: you're going to try to edit this way... --Ronz (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me correct myself - I used reliable secondary sources, except for the FDA source document. My so-called "syn" edits were adding reliable secondary sources.Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not addressing the relevant policies. Either you don't understand them, or you choose not to...
 * You've convinced me that you should be banned from the articles, but then I'm one that likes to stop such disruption early. If you continue, and are lucky, you won't be blocked or banned for some time, until there's so much disruption that it needs to be taken to WP:ARBCOM.
 * My suggestion is to instead take some time from Wikipedia completely; or to edit articles having nothing to do with the topics you've had problems with, nothing to do with alternative medicine, and nothing where you'd try to impose your own personal viewpoints. --Ronz (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I forgot that you can be blocked or banned because of past ARBCOM rulings. Now that you've been formally warned, you likely won't be allowed to continue editing as you have been for much longer. So what's it going to be? --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * --Ronz (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at Emotional Freedom Technique
A complaint about your edits has been filed at WP:AN3. You may respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see the result of this case at WP:AN3, since it contains a warning for you. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles of interest to you are covered by Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
The notices which are currently visible on your talk page (above) will provide enough background for this warning. You have been active on pages in and  and others have already pointed out the problems with your editing there. Examples are Emotional Freedom Technique and Orthomolecular medicine. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Joel D. Wallach
Please return to the discussion on the talk page and address the concerns there. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Wealth in gold.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wealth in gold.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. bobrayner (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Joel D. Wallach for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joel D. Wallach is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Joel D. Wallach until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MastCell Talk 16:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)