Thanks all for the clarifications and offers of help. I have already avoided editing on the subject I am not allowed to talk about. On an animal page, there was the opportunity to edit a very useful piece of material where a non-human animal was a useful model of psychology in another animal species I am not allowed to mention; it simply wasn't worth it. The result - the project suffers.DrChrissy(talk)09:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's no point asking for trouble, is there? Speaking of which, it looks like the edit you made to your sandbox may violate your topic ban as it concerns references for the effectiveness of acupuncture treatments. Pinging the topic ban closing admin Adjwilley for clarification. This might also be a good time to clarify the hypothetical situation in this section (whether discussing MEDRS on an animal page, even to say it doesn't apply to that page, would be a violation of the topic ban). Ca2james (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ca2james This is absolutely staggering! I copied the table from my own sandbox into another place into my own sandbox. The material already existed before the topic ban. My intention is to develop a table on the sensory characteristics of domestic animals - hence the new column headings. Did you see those? I was called away before I could develop the table further. I think that was 4 hours ago. I have not made any attempt to discuss material in this edit or elsewhere. I was using it as a template. I think you are WP:hounding me.DrChrissy(talk)22:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to see you blocked for violating your topic ban, and editing your sandbox is a grey area with respect to that ban. If you don't want me posting here, please ask me to stop instead of accusing me of hounding for pointing out possible violations of your topic ban. Ca2james (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you really don't want to see me blocked, why have you brought the subject up? Why not take my sandbox off your watchlist and don't worry about a low-level editor starting a new \nd informative page about the sensory characteristics of domestic animals.DrChrissy(talk)23:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to clarify your topic ban so that you don't violate it and get blocked. If you don't want people pointing out that you might be violating your topic ban, don't make edits that might violate your topic ban. Ca2james (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DrChrissy, seriously -- if you want to get out from under the topic ban you need to convince people that you're willing to keep inside the lines. That means staying away from anything having to do with alt med. Period. No ifs, ands or buts. Not on your talk page, not in your sandbox, not anywhere else on the interwebs that has "en.wikipedia.org" in the URL. By doing things like this you're only giving ammunition to your opponents. It doesn't matter if you think you're in the right or even if you are in the right -- you need to change people's perceptions and this isn't the way to do it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two points:
There is no "grey area" here. A topic ban applies to all of Wikipedia, no exceptions. If the subject of the topic ban necessitates involvement from the involved party, such as in them being required to answer questions in an ArbCom case, that's a different matter and all parties understand.
I think we should AGF and accept DrChrissy's explanation. I don't see any attempt to deal with acupuncture. They just copied an existing template and haven't finished modifying it yet. That's not a violation. Now they should get back to removing every trace from that template which can be misunderstood.
@DrChrissy, I was asked to comment above, but it looks like several other users have already given you all the advice you need. My advice is to listen. Also, to clarify the above, it is not a blockable offense to mention MEDRS while discussing the terms of your topic ban with an administrator. Otherwise though, I think Short Brigade Harvester Boris is 100% right. In the (unlikely) hypothetical situation where somebody demands an MEDRS source for a mundane animal claim like dogs having four legs, I think your best bet would be to decline to reply to such a silly comment. Second best might be to say "I can't comment on that, but perhaps User:Montanabw can." Be careful of WP:Canvass though; if you are frequently pinging others to take your side in disputes it can get you back into hot water. ~Adjwilley (talk)06:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your AGF. @User:Adjwilley, or another admin, I would like to further show good faith by removing all banned subject matter totally from my sandbox so I do not make this mistake again. However, this will of course mean me editing the banned subject. I will wait for advice before I do this.DrChrissy(talk)08:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removing topical content from pages in your userspace is perfectly acceptable while topic banned. Just try not to add to them or modify them in a way that still addresses the topic. You can definitely go ahead and remove references from your sandbox if you'd like. Good luck! — Jess· Δ♥09:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Animal biology, behavior, health, and normal veterinary medicine does not fall under the scope of this ban so long as it does not intersect with alternative medicine. This is written into your topic ban. It's very clear and it is an exemption to your MEDRS topic ban. It probably wouldn't be a good idea for anyone to attempt to game your sanctions in an attempt to cause trouble for you. If they say you need a MEDRS source to show a dog has four legs (which would be ridiculous), dog biology falls under animal biology and is exempt from your topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. There are other examples which have ocurred in the past - I think a well known medical editor insisted on MEDRS for non-human related subject matter on the Foie gras article. However, these examples are from the past and I am totally clear that in the future, I will ping an admin if I am unsure about things.DrChrissy(talk)09:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User page
Hi. Just letting you know that I removed an extra bracket from your category listing on your user page because it was showing up at the bottom.[1] And btw, "Mainstream Feather Ruffler" would make a great user name! :) Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Preliminary note It was stated here [2] that "...it is not a blockable offense to mention MEDRS while discussing the terms of your topic ban with an administrator."...I am assuming this also applies to discussing the terms of the ban relating to alt.med with administrators. I hope this is not a violation - if it is, I immediately apologise.
I am confused about the terms of my topic ban. Several admins have made the point that my sandbox is to be considered as any other page on wikipedia and that I should not make edits wrt topic-banned material on there. For example, User: Ca2james stated "The topic ban includes WP:MEDRS related discussions with no exemptions for certain pages or if someone else brings it up first." and "...it looks like the edit you made to your sandbox may violate your topic ban as it concerns references for the effectiveness of acupuncture treatments". User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris stated "That means staying away from anything having to do with alt med. Period. No ifs, ands or buts. Not on your talk page, not in your sandbox, not anywhere else on the interwebs that has "en.wikipedia.org" in the URL." This all sounds very black-and-white. Indeed User:BullRangifer stated "There is no "grey area" here. A topic ban applies to all of Wikipedia, no exceptions." However, User:Jess wrote "Removing topical content from pages in your userspace is perfectly acceptable while topic banned" and User:BullRangifer encouraged me to edit topic-banned material in my sandbox by stating "Now they should get back to removing every trace from that template which can be misunderstood." This is clearly conflicting and contradictory advice.
I have 2 questions.
If my sandbox is considered the exact equivalent of all other pages, why am I being told it is permissible (encouraged) to remove topic-banned material from this? Surely if there is equivalance among the pages, this means I am also allowed to remove/edit such material from all pages, not just my sandbox.
Where are the policy/guidelines that state sandboxes are equivalent to all other pages with respect to a topic ban. I have checked WP:Topic ban but all this states is that "...also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages" with no mention of sandboxes.
Context is everything here. My comment referred to the situation then occurring at your sandbox, not anywhere else: "I don't see any attempt to deal with acupuncture. They just copied an existing template and haven't finished modifying it yet. That's not a violation. Now they should get back to removing every trace from that template which can be misunderstood." Just finish the job you were doing. You just needed the template for another use unrelated to your topic ban. That's fine. If you had finished your edits before saving, no one would have known the difference. Otherwise you would be wise to not edit the subject in any manner anywhere else. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Triple Crown "of Thorns"
Winner of The Prickness
You had a good run in The Dirty, won The Prickness, and seem to be running handily in The Prickmont. The trupial on the left shows us how easy it is to avoid the pricks.
Hee hee. Thanks - made me smile on what is a pretty miserable day in my area of the world (Somerset, UK)DrChrissy(talk)11:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way User:Atsme, I had a passing thought the other day to rename the Pricks the "WikiBorg". I'm not sure if you are familiar with these Star Trek characters but they share several characteristics with the Pricks. Their main aim is to achieve perfection and they do this by "assimilating" all non-Borg species they encounter. This means that ALL (Wiki)Borgs think in the same way. They are all inter-connected by a subspace (Wiki)network so once one (Wiki)Borg knows something, they ALL do! Their favourite saying is "Resistance is Futile". They act as drones in a "hive mind" called the Collective, or "the hive" (good reference to stinging Pricks!). There is a single Borg Queen who is the focal point within the Borg collective consciousness - I am now opening bets on which WikiBorg is the WikiBorg Queen! hee hee.DrChrissy(talk)11:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reference errors on 20 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
The WP:BURDEN is on the person restoring the content to provide valid sourcing. The Daily Mail is unacceptable as sourcing for pretty much anything. And you yourself admit that you are using it to bolster even less reliable gossip. Wikipedia does not work that way. Revert yourself until you have sourcing that is at least marginally acceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom15:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the support for your argument that the Daily Mail is unacceptable? I have certainly not said I will be using "it to bolster even less reliable gossip". There is a statement about the number of dogs killed in China with an in-line reference (hardly "gossip"). An editor has tagged it with "Better source needed". I have added an additional source (the Daily Mail article), however, because I am unfamiliar with the quality of the first article, I do not know whether the Daily Mail is better or not - it is simply additional, supportive material.DrChrissy(talk)16:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well finding sources is something I like to do, I belong to Wikiproject Citation cleanup. When I read you were trying to fix a request for a better source I thought I would lend a hand. AlbinoFerret19:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the burden "lies with the editor who adds or restores material," But if the only issue is if the Daily mail is a RS, it all depends on what is being sourced. Here, a [better source needed] or [[Unreliable source}} tag is superior to blanking, as the material isn't actually all that incorrect. Montanabw(talk)23:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Montanabw. Whenever I find a source that seems a bit dodgy, I almost always use [better source needed] rather than delete the statement - this seems much more collegiate and leaves the material there for others to find a better source. Unfortunately, the issue at this article might be more complex than simply whether the Daily Mail is RS source - an old friend has joined me at the article and I suspect a bit of goading is going on.DrChrissy(talk)23:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, don't fall for the bait, eh? Given that the current article appears to use other sources to verify most of the stuff, not worth the fight. The Morocco bit probably does need more than the DM due to the high degree of controversy. A high controversy situation is one of those things like the downfall of John Edwards - just because the National Enquirer broke the story and got it right (and got nominated for a Pulitzer Prize to boot!) still didn't mean they were an RS until the mainstream media agreed. :-P Tabloids get no respect! Montanabw(talk)03:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the article is already of substantial length and there is great evidence that the article is being used to push advocacy and that highly reliable academic sources abound for potential use, I have no compunction against immediate removal of any and all questionably sourced content to help ensure the integrity of the project. Implications made on the basis of twits by comedians in tabloid scandal sheets for example should be scoured clean without even a slight hesitation.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom12:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did I ever tell you how great you tweak? I'm impressed. I was going to respond to your Borg post but I can't remember where I saw it, so I'll post my response here. I can't help you with the Borgs, and I have no clue who fits into what position. What I do know is that when the going gets tough, we tell Scotty to beam up Captain Kirk.Atsme📞📧20:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Glad you like my method of tweaking - nothing better than a good ol' tweak in the right place ;-) The Borg posting can be found here if you want to see that bit of silliness again.[9]DrChrissy(talk)20:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - there's no reason for you to have any concern over citing EWS. The information on the site comes right out of the documentaries which were broadcast internationally, and on PBS in the US. They were also reviewed by Booklist (American Library Association) and got high ratings. In fact, America's Crayfish: Crawling in Troubled Waters was Best Of Editors’ Choice 2000 — Jan 2001 Issue — BOOKLIST. They were produced in cooperation with USF&WS and numerous other state and federal resource agencies, were/still are available in university libraries, were used in ichthyology classes, are still being distributed by several state resource agencies, were used in educational kiosks in zoo aquariums, and as teaching aids for volunteers at the Aquarium of the Americas and also the Tennessee Aquarium, and are what most of the new research was built on. For example, U of Michigan cites the paddlefish documentary, [10], and the late Kim Graham who was our board president [11] h-index >50, and L.A. Helfrich (Virginia Tech) a former board member with h-index >19. While they won't pass the scrutiny of MEDRS, the information easily passes the scrutiny of RS. Didn't want you to think you were citing podunk sources. Atsme📞📧00:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for all the background - the videos are obviously well received elsewhere. The site/videos are clearly written by experts and I had no hesitation using them. Good work!DrChrissy(talk)12:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indentation on the reference desks
Hey DrChrissy. Over at WP:RDS#Elephant seals and rape you have added a heavily indented (six levels) response. On the reference desks we follow the indentation and threading practices described at Help:Using talk pages#Indentation. Would you please edit you response and indent it only once if it is intended as a response to the original question (which I assume it to be) or twice if it is intended as a response to my immediately preceding response? Thanks. -- ToE23:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that - I got caught in an edit conflict and got confused about the level of indentation.DrChrissy(talk)23:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis cool. Edit conflicts are a real pain. Since you experienced one when you did, timing suggests is was with my 23:03 response, and that your post was thus not a response to it. I was just checking in case there was something unclear in the FES quotation I provided that I needed to respond to, but all seems clear. Cheers! -- ToE23:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment on my page
Thanks for taking the trouble to write. Please take a moment to read about the use of upper case. Show me where it says that ***one*** word in upper case is considered shouting. Wikipedia's various resources to highlight something do not work in edit summaries - you cannot use underline, or bold or italic, so there is not much else taht can be used. If you know of any useful solutions, please do share. Secondly, I took a lot of time to analyse the article and trace back the origin of that section anss provided a meaningful summary. You on the other hand, merely reverted on tha basis of the lede covering the whole article. Yes, the lead by all means must cover all key aspects, but it cannot posssibly cover the article sentence for sentence. Anyone can easily find in all GAs plenty of bits of information not included in the lede. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I am not exactly sure why you find it so odd that I would respond here. In all my time here I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of those I have interacted with in any of the Wikipedias where I contribute reply on the page of the person who left them a message. Sometimes you see users with a banner saying "If I write on your page, please reply ......." indicating where to reply. And by the way, I replied, I did not move the discussion. Moving a discussion is something entirely different. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DrChrissy. Just a curiosity of mine. You, as a seasoned editor on animal topics, what is your opinion of Captivity (animal) (no sources presented for the definitions), where livestock and pets are included under the umbrella of animals living in captivity? Captivity to me implies something forced, beyong the control/ will of the creatures on which it imposed. Yet pets and most farm animals are not 'captive' in the sense of being held against their will. In fact most will struggle to survive on their own in the wild. Shouldn't the concept of "captivity" be reserved for animals that would if given the chance return to the wild, such as lions, birds, etc? In terms of terminology, is this how it is treated in the scientific literature on the topic? Thanks, regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WoW - this article has so many problems. I have not seen it before. I have hardly gone past the opening paragraph without recoiling at multiple times. First, what does the title mean? What are the aims of the article? Second, the opening sentence states "Animals that live under human care are in captivity". I have 2 cats. I live with my door open almost 100% of my waking hours and it has a cat flap which is never locked even when I am asleep. My cats live under my care, but I would not for one second think of them as "captive". Humans do many things such that non-human animals are under their care, but the non-human animals are not captive. I was watching a TV programme last night where badgers' burrows were undermining a school. An artificial badger sett was built and the badgers moved to this. The badgers are now living under the care of humans but they are not captive. Plenty of people put out food for wild birds. The birds are living under the care of humans, but they are not captive in any way that makes sense to me. I think this article needs to sort out its aims, and then a useful definition can be given. Until then, it could almost be deleted! Hope this helps.DrChrissy(talk)23:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it certainly helps, much appreciated. I thought I was seeing things when I read the intro. I agree 100%. I will flag it and see when I can dedicate some time to it. It is not the only one, List of domesticated animals also uses the term "captivity" to refer to cats, cattle, etc, being "[degree of] common in captivity" or "[degree of] common in the wild". Even silkworms .... Thanks, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lead balloons
Well that certainly went over like a lead balloon, didn't it? It is becoming more and more obvious that WP is at a stage similar to that that all large organizations reach, be they national governments, corporations, etc., and even religious organizations such as the Catholic church (thinking of that sweetie Pope Francis here). A few like-minded individuals of a certain psychological makeup eventually come into control and from then on any fresh thinking outside of the prevalent mindset is viewed with suspect. Even for me to post on your page throws me into the group of editors that must be suspect of being "woo" defenders, and such...not that I was not already there. :) I don't know how to deal with it. It's sorta like a WP underground for now... Gandydancer (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. I think some people have their own pre-conceived ideas about the suitability of some newspapers which they struggle to (can not) explain. However, as long as there are enough of them with the same thought, this is going to be the consensus and they can go along slashing at articles knowing they have a suitable number of supporters to protect them. It strikes me that people are making decisions at the RS Talk page but then imposing them on literally any article in the project. However, my understanding is that the nature of a RS should be discussed at the Talk page of the article - this means it involves the editors most involved and knowledgeable about the subject. If there have been discussions by the sages at the RS talk page, this is fine, but editors need some clear and easily accessible direction and advice from this. I thought the table-approach would help that problem. Should I take this to a RfC do you think?
On the subject of being a "woo" defender - I actually do not consider myself as that. I believe very firmly in presenting a balanced article. This sometimes means I actually place RS edits which contradict my own beliefs - I am a hard-nosed scientist, but I do not believe in censorship of alternative ideas and views.DrChrissy(talk)16:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the Mail goes, IMO the people at RS have been around the block enough times to give an accurate estimation of most news sources, including the Mail. I'm not from the UK so I (at one time) did not have any idea what a piece of crap it was and wish I would have known that years ago. One incident comes to mind about a piece (of crap) they did on Occupy Wall Street when I was working on that article. Based on what I know now, I would have deleted it. As for an RfC on it, I think it's a good idea--if you can stand it... As for woo, didn't you suggest that acupuncture has been used with some benefit? Clearly you are promoting W-woo and need instructions in the scientific method...or whatever... Gandydancer (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gandy, I am not really sure why you felt the need to write that I need instructions in scientific method. I actually find that rather insulting given my real world occupation. In which aspect of scientific investigation do you suggest I seek instruction? Are you able/prepared to offer that instruction for me? I can not comment in detail about your post due to a topic ban I am under, but editors can post a source that indicates an action has a benefit without actually promoting it ...the post may simply be redressing an editing imbalance.DrChrissy(talk)23:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I am so sorry... I totally forgot that sarcasm so often does not work here. From what I've read from your posts you are an intelligent and informed editor! I don't follow your posts, but from what I'v seen you are an excellent editor. Gandydancer (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I went to push one of your meat collages live to the Carnism article, but I'm a bit concerned about their copyright status. You listed these as "own works". Did you take each of the individual pictures? If they were grabbed from the Wikimedia Commons, there should be attribution given to each of the creators of the works/the uploaders. Could you please clarify where each picture came from? Thanks. ~ RobTalk22:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:BU Rob13. I got each of the images from Wikicommons. I thought this meant that creators gave up the rights to their work and that if I created a collage containing their work, this use of their work was my ownership. I am an amateur photographer myself and very mindful of correct attribution, so if I am wrong, please let me know.DrChrissy(talk)13:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the images. All works on Wikimedia Commons have a license no more restrictive than requiring attribution and share alike, meaning that you must attribute to the original authors and offer your new work under the same or similar license (no more or less restrictive). Some images may not require attribution, share alike, or both, but most do. For instance, public domain images do not necessarily require either. To determine what license the images you grabbed were offered under, check the "Licensing" information underneath the image on Wikimedia. As an example, see File:Steven Boyer.jpg, which I created as a derivative work a while back, and File:Steven Boyer, May 2015.jpg, which was the original work I grabbed from Flickr after discussing licensing with the photographer. On the original image under Licensing, you can see the requirements to attribute and share alike. On my derivative work, you can see how I did that: I acknowledged the source as Wikimedia Commons with a link, and then noted that I created the derivative work while attributing the original to the author. Let me know if you have any questions on that, although my knowledge is not as comprehensive as more experienced editors in this area. ~ RobTalk15:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking File:Meats.jpg, as I believe there's consensus at the talk page to include a picture of different cuts of meat, at the very least. I suspect that we may update to another collage at some point, but I think that's the best image that meets the current consensus to include a collage of meats. ~ RobTalk17:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest way to do this would be to create a multi-image of the original files. That would give correct attribution. Should I do this and delete my collages from wikicommons (they were only meant as drafts anyway)?DrChrissy(talk)17:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, however you think is best. I don't do much work with images, so I'm sure you know more about how to do it properly than me. Multi-images are above my pay grade. ~ RobTalk18:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that with certain exceptions, a user has the right to remove posts from his talk page, and that reverting that removal can be construed as WP:Disruptive editing and can lead to being blocked. BMK (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is true. Now, I don't think they restored identical material, but three of those messages in a row, all saying pretty much the same thing, that's not OK. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Drmies please can you clarify what was not OK. Was I wrong to post a similar message 3 times, or do you consider the actions of BMK to be inappropriate?DrChrissy(talk)12:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. Lion societies are complex. For Cecil to have been an alpha male, he would have had to have unrestricted access to resources. I have no idea whether there were other males in the pride, so I can not say whether access to food, mates, etc. was unrestricted. I have no doubt that his being an "alpha male" has been reported - it is the sort of "buzz-word" in animal behaviour that reporters like to use. It has more sensationalist impact if the animal has a very special attribute. However, this may not be the truth. I suspect this is one of those cases where it is verifiable, but is it the truth?DrChrissy(talk)22:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they would be the people to ask. I'm unaware of the detail of their studies but they may not have the data to support this. I have had lots of dealings with the media in my job as an animal behaviouralist and I'm afraid that my experience of the media, even very reputable sources like the Guardian, is that they are remarkably reluctant to report accuracy rather than sound-bites.DrChrissy(talk)22:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Too true, lots of ignorance on scientific concepts. I have seen what idiots the media are with horse topics... calling young female horses "filly colts" or saying "pull on the reigns.." ARRGGH! (ripping hair out, sorry, had to vent). Montanabw(talk)00:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are several questions here. The first is whether "alpha male" is verifiable or not. Yes it is, because it was written - but, I strongly suspect the "alpha male" was added post-interview by the reporter not realising it has a specific meaning in ethology. For Cecil to have been an "alpha male", there must have been other males in the pride. Were there? I don't know. The next question is whether he was the "dominant" male. Dominance hierarchies amongst social animals take hours of careful observation to work out. Has this work been conducted and published? Moreover, lions usually have a harem system and ethologists tend to think of a dominance hierarchy within the females, but do not include the (often solitary) male. If there are multiple males, it will be possible to work out dominance amongst the males, but again, I have no idea if there were multiple males. Why do you wish to add such a label?DrChrissy(talk)19:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I wish to add any label. I didn't add dominant male. But I was trying get your thoughts on it appropriateness, given that it wikilinks to Alpha (ethology). It would be a separate question to actually link it. Is that term wrong? Is the wiki re-direct wrong? Or perhaps both? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that both terms could be wrong. If he was the only male than he could not have been an "alpha male". If he was the only male in a harem system, he would not usually be considered as "dominant". I have only seen reports that indicate he was the only male. To my mind, the link is wrong. "Dominance" covers a wide range of animal society organisations such as despot, linear, triangular, etc. "Alpha male" usually covers when there is one dominant male and other subordinate males in the group. It is arguable whether there should be a link, but in my view there should not.DrChrissy(talk)21:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, the problem is that he could be either, or neither, but this would have to determined by science - not simply a reporter's throw-away remark which is almost certainly intended to inflate the importance of Cecil (as if that was really needed!). Happy to discuss when you wish.DrChrissy(talk)21:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A dominant animal is one which gets priority of access to resources (mates, food, water, etc). An alpha male is the dominant male within a group which contains multiple males. simplzzzzz. ;-) DrChrissy(talk)21:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know I can fix them! Have a look at how many references I have fixed on that article over the last few days! I am tired of doing this. It is very sloppy editing for editors to be using the wrong reference format and even worse still, not attributing information correctly. This creates work for others. If people leave out occasional details fine - but there seems to be an attitude on the article that simply slapping a url on is sufficient. It is not good editing at all.DrChrissy(talk)18:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BATTLEGROUND
fwiw, I suggest that you reconsider pushing yet further into conflict. You will do as you will, of course. But it is not a wise course of action. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Considering you have asked me not to post to your Talk page, it's a bit rude to post to mine with such a confrontational posting.DrChrissy(talk)18:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How did it work out for you the last time you pursued conflict - when you entered the acupuncture fray following our disagreement at Foie gras? Is WP a happier place for you? You will do as you will, but in my view the course you are pursuing is not wise - it is not good for WP, and most of all it is not good for you. I'll not respond further. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, no threat. Pursuing conflict across WP is just generally unwise, and you have your own experience to rely on for that. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And likewise you have your own experience regarding incivility. You wouldn't be trying to harrass me for bring that AN/I upon you would you?DrChrissy(talk)19:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You just cannot accept my apology from that and move on, can you? I am sorry about that. If you want to hold onto your anger and let it drive you into more and more conflict, that is what you will do. Good luck to you, drchrissy.Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well if I knew what I was considering in the first place, I could perhaps contemplate re-considering.DrChrissy(talk)20:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are well aware that you just started editing Glyphosate which you never edited before yesterday per this and this and jumped right into a content dispute. You are of course free to edit where ever you like, but pursuing conflict is not wise. Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that your interpretation is poorly supported by evidence, and that attempting to goad Jytdog with spurious accusations of harrassment reflects far more poorly on you than it does on him. Though I am sure that as long as you don't stalk Jytdog's contributions again in the future, neither he nor I will feel any impulse to ask you not to do so on your talk page, or to caution you that such behavior is likely to lead to (additional) restrictions or sanctions.
While I cannot speak for Jytdog, I strongly suspect that he (and I) will refrain from any further posts to your talk page as long as you refrain from further unsubstantiated accusations of misconduct against other editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully they will hold true to their word and stay away from this talk page. This is clearly harassment and should not be tolerated here. Gandydancer (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:TenOfAllTrades - Jtydog came here to my talk page and started unfounded accusations of my searching for conflict. If someone comes to my Talkpage and starts making such wild accusations, I will defend myself. If they continue unfounded accusations, then it is perfectly reasonable for me to interpret their accusations as harassment. I take your joining in on this thread to be contributing to this harassment. Please desist. Thank you.DrChrissy(talk)19:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with DrC and Gandy. If one wants to bring a conduct issue to a user's attention, a single, specific, polite posting is sufficient. The above exchange was inappropriate, and I suggest the Doctor remove further posts on the same topic per WP:REMOVED. FourViolas (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article revision
Hello, what program do you use to scan? You are aware that "major cause of shark population population decline worldwide" is not advocacy, funding, or POV-advancement for PETA?
Hi. This is a discussion about content. I hope you don't mind, but I am moving it to the articles talk page.DrChrissy(talk)21:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article was called up at WP:MED as being problematic/promotional and I agree. This is within your area of expertise, I believe. Might you be willing to fix it? Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edits, Dr. C. I did emit what Wooster would call a hollow l. when I saw it being called promotional. Because I started it after spending $35 or so on a kit and finding it completely ineffective for our poor dog's thunderstorm anxiety. (Some version or other is sold at all the major pet store chains in the US). Tried to do the best I could with the sources at hand, thinking more and better studies would come along later. It does show up (often with a "may...") at quite a few US veterinary .edu sites. [14] My guess is that they feel confident it does no harm. Nice improvement job, regards, Novickas (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I felt the most important thing was to establish that there is a natural substance with this name. I have found several secondary sources stating this, however, I have yet to find the original article that first described the naturally occurring hormone. After this, I have tried to establish the efficacy of synthetic DAB giving it a balanced coverage. The article is still very much a work in progress so feel free to contribute.DrChrissy(talk)22:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The picture was a great idea :) Maybe this is the seminal paper? [15]? Cited so often. But I don't have full access. There is some sort of resource exchange service on WP where you can request someone to provide a document: Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange.
By the way, I see that your book refs don't have ISBNs - this suggests to me that you are filling out the cite info manually, and so may not be aware of this wonderful Wikipedia book ref generation tool. [16]Novickas (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Novickas. Glad you liked the Dalmation image - it's rather cute, but at the same time I think it gets the message across. Thanks for the [18] reference. I have seen this before, but unfortunately, at the moment I can only access the abstract and this does not directly mention the pheromone. I'll try other potential routes of getting full access. Regarding the ISBN: I usually use Google Scholar's "cite" function and copy and paste info from there. Unfortunately, this does not always contain the ISBN. Thanks for the heads up on the tool.DrChrissy(talk)13:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dog appeasing pheromone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sulcus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Colony collapse disorder. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Oh dear Jytdog, what is going on here? Is it not the case that DrChrissy reverted two of your reverts, while you reverted three of his reverts? The message you just added here seems to me woefully inappropriate and patronising. You have done much excellent and very needed work monitoring medical articles. It is important in that context, indeed imperative, to make sure premature and inadequately validated research findings are not allowed to result in medical casualties among humans. Are you claiming that Colony collapse disorder falls also under the umbrella of the medical project? I have seen you elsewhere harassing DrChrissy with inappropriate claims concerning the force feeding of geese. How is that connected with human medical safety issues? Then you were claiming that sources detailing research conducted some years ago could not be used. Now you appear to be harassing DrChrissy again, claiming, this time in connection with bees, that research conducted recently cannot be used either. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the issue I raised each time was that in general WP should be based on secondary sources, not brand new primary ones. The secondary literature is where we find out if some primary source is crackpot. or actually worth something. I didn't want to make things worse by writing what Smartse did but yes, that source is the kind of thing you find published sometimes in the literature, that is most likely to get ignored in reviews. But it is not for us as WP editors to judge if some primary source is worthwhile or not - we let experts in the field tell us in review articles. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not just in review articles but also in review sections. That is the material you are disruptively removing.DrChrissy(talk)13:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DrChrissy, you have added , and edit warred to retain, this source in a 2nd article now. Added to Magnetoceptionhere, reverted here by Smartse citing the RSN discussion, you added it back content about this topic based on primary sourceshere with an accompanying note on Smartse's talk page here; I saw the latter and went to the article and again removed the sourcerevertedhere. Please stop adding this contested source to articles until consensus is reached at RSN. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have removed sources which are not being discussed at RSN and are RS. So I have reverted you. Please stop your edit-warring.DrChrissy(talk)10:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for missing it, that you did not include the contested source when you edit warred the content back into the article; you did include it the first time. I would have self-reverted b/c my rationale was not correct but you already did. In any case, please see discussion opened at Talk:Magnetoception#Bees about the remaining sources. My apologies again for missing it that you did not include it the 2nd time. Jytdog (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"do not edit without my permission"
DrChrissy, it's ridiculous to get in a snit because Jytdog removed his own post, which you had not replied to at that time.[19] Now it appears on both your page and article talk. I don't understand what advantage you see in that, nor why you preferred to reply here. Bishonen | talk14:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
User:Bishonen, I am flattered that an admin as busy and productive as yourself has the time to monitor my Talk page. Thank you for your comments and of course you are correct. Whilst you are here, please would you be so kind as to offer an admin's view on the behaviour of Jytdog in the section above titled "Battleground"User talk:DrChrissy#BATTLEGROUND.DrChrissy(talk)18:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid I'm not up for discussing the matter with you after noticing your removal of TenOfAllTrades' post here, without even the courtesy of an edit summary. While you're "allowed" to selectively blank informative posts from your page, I'm not obliged to find the practice decent or honest. And I wasn't in fact "monitoring" your page, I stumbled on it, but since you esteem my attention flattering I may start watching it now. Bishonen | talk23:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Hi User:Etron770. User:Montanabw and I have locked horns before, but sometime ago we kissed and made up. We have great mutual respect for each other and we both edit to benefit the encyclopaedia. I will try to make the edits I have been proposing. See you at the page.DrChrissy(talk)11:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what you are suggesting I do with that information. Perhaps you would like to clarify?DrChrissy(talk)16:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would only give you a hint that the study should not be a "poor designed study (often used by Montanabw)" because Hemelrijk as expert was involved :-) Etron770 (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am a qualified ethologist (not that this matters all that much, really). The study has some limitations, but these are not so severe that the study can not be cited. I'm a scientist, and for me a quantitative study considerably outweighs anecdotes. Furthermore, I am not entirely happy with the quality of the sources I used to indicate these anecdotes, but I was trying to present a balanced view. The belief that people have about there being lead mares can be verified, and of course, WP is about whether something can be verified, not whether it is the truth. I have presented this, alongside the quantitative study. Let's see what comments are made, if any.DrChrissy(talk)18:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen this abstract before - thank you. I tried to look at the Berger paper but I can only get the abstract at this stage. Unfortunately, it does not state in the abstract, how many groups he recorded. This is absolutely critical because each group must be considered as the statistical unit. This is because the animals are not behaving independently and to assume that they are, is pseudo-replication. Do you know how many groups Berger studied?DrChrissy(talk)19:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I know it is written in Wild Horses of the Great Basin: Social Competition and Population Size (Wildlife Behavior and Ecology) by Joel Berger (Mar 1986) a short description (if you have access doi:10.1016/0169-5347(86)90027-3Even in a five-year study of a large mammal species, there is the risk that small sample sizes will lead to unconvincing arguments. In places,Berger’s book suffers from this problem,and from occasional lapses of clarity. But this is always the problem of studies in horses but not with rats ....
(talk page stalker)I am open to people posting solid scientific studies at the article talk page and discussing them. There is a lot of romanticized nonsense out there in horse land, and a lot of badly-designed studies, and studies done by people who, though having a doctorate or an area of expertise, still have a bias that comes through and causes issues with the neutrality of their work. I am always open to article improvement, I am just very, very dubious of people who say, "you must listen to this person because s/he is such a great expert." We need to take our time and do it right, not just edit-war over a few sentences with a great sound and fury that exchanges one POV for another. Montanabw(talk)22:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Montanabw - good to hear from you again. I accept your points totally. Can I please ask that this conversation is moved to the Article Talk page as it is about content, and other editors concerned about this topic need to see this. See you there.DrChrissy(talk)22:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DrChrissy, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Yobol (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you read the diff that you reverted to find out. In general, that is good policy to do before reverting another editor, especially on a talk page. Yobol (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I'm quite concerned that you don't seem to know the content of the diff you yourself reverted. I hope you have not made a habit of reverting other people's edits before reading the content of the edit, and do not make such a mistake again in the future. Yobol (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct - talk pages are supposed to be a record of discussion. By redacting, Jytdog was changing that record of discussion so I reverted his redaction.DrChrissy(talk)18:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to discern what material was redacted - perhaps you would be so kind to tell me. Is it possible that Jytdog said they had made a redaction but in fact had not?
You are unable to read or understand diffs? How can you hope to accurately make reverts if you cannot read a diff (add: indeed, you have made 5 reverts in your last 50 edits, but you can't understand the diff above? Remarkable.) Please also see WP:REDACT. Editors are allowed to edit their own comments; you are not allowed to edit others'. Please do not do this again. Yobol (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Might I also add that if you cannot read a diff, you should not be making any reverts at all until you can do so. Being able to accurately see a change on a wiki would seem to be a necessary prerequisite to performing any reverts. Yobol (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see the problem now. Jytdog underlined the material, rather than striking through. WP:REDACT indicates this is permissible, however, it is the first time I have ever seen underlining used in this way.DrChrissy(talk)19:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For those who might be following this, when I reverted I did so because Jytdog told the community that he had redacted material. Normally, "redacted" means material is made invisible to the reader, as has been pointed out to Jytdog here[20]. I reverted because I believed Jytdog had made material invisible to the reader and I thought by reverting this, the material would again become visible. I have raised how this confusion came about with a suggestion for change at WP:REDACT. As a side note to talk - you have an extremely aggressive manner of conversing with me. If you come to my Talk page again, please temper your tone and accusations.DrChrissy(talk)21:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
here is the dif. Three things: 1) edit note says "redact" (!) 2) markup is used per WP:REDACT. 3) I added an extra note and signature after my original signature, saying "redact to fix error i made". It doesn't get more thoroughly marked than that. Please note further that DrChrissy's reversion asked, in its edit note, "Why are you redacting this?" The issue was questioning my "right" to redact it all. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DrChrissy: I'm sorry if I come off as aggressive, I have no intention of that, I am just direct. The root of the problem here, as I see it, is when you did not understand what was going on, your first instinct in this case was not to discuss the issue with the editor who you did not understand, but to completely revert their edit. This is the wrong choice in most cases, but is especially poor form on a talk page, as this is a wiki and a collaborative effort requires good communication. Might I suggest that this behavior could also be construed as "aggressive", and some self reflection on your own behavior may be fruitful. Yobol (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
Hello DrChrissy, I don't believe we have met before. I came across you owing to your recent post at WP:AN and then took a look at your user page. I see that you are interested in all things to do with animals, a subject also close to my heart. The other day, and quite by chance, I undertook a secondary review of Ayrshire cattle which was passed as a GA by a reviewer who didn't really have a clue about what makes a good article. I suspect he was just trying to get his GA review score up and was passing articles for the hell of it. Anyway, the article is now listed as a GA to which I took issue with. I feel sorry for the primary author who is now having to face a wrath of comments by me in order to keep this at GA. I don't really want to delist it as it can be achieved with very little work, but I think the author could do with some help if you are able to. In particular, I'm looking for an etymology and taxonomy section which I feel could really benefit the article. CassiantoTalk15:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cassianto. Welcome to my Talk page. I looked at Ayrshire cattle without looking at your questions or the GA process, so these are hopefully completely unbiased comments. My first surprise was at how brief the article is and that it appeared to be lacking what I would consider basic information such as breed standards. I was also surprised at the rather poor phrasing and images/placement that might be expected of a GA. In short, I agree with you that it was premature to pass this as a GA. Update - Have just looked at the Talk page and it appears it has NOT been GA approved. I will join you at the article to help with its development.DrChrissy(talk)15:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged. It turns out that the nominator has shunned my offer by approaching the Guildhall of Copy Editors instead. Nevertheless, I shall ignore this rebuke and work with you to improve it. See you there, and thanks again. CassiantoTalk15:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DrChrissy, it appears you are under a topic ban from "biomedical topics, broadly construed" (emphasis mine), which would include all content regarding human health. Recently, you got into a discussion on this section of the talk page on Genetically modified foods, which is a discussion about how to use a statement regarding the safety of GMO food on human health. This would appear to be violation of the topic ban, and I would encourage you to desist from further discussion in the topic area and strike your comments. Yobol (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the heads-up on this. The Article and its Talk page are about Genetically modified food and it has already been established my posting there is not in violation of my topic ban. More specifically, my posting refers to the edits of another editor and makes no attempt whatsoever to discuss biochemical topics, broadly construed. In even more detail, the petition relates to "GMO safety". I am sure you are aware there are many aspects of GMO safety that are not Biomedical, no matter how broadly construed, for example, reductions in biodiversity, ecological pollutants, hybridisation with non-GMO wildlife.DrChrissy(talk)14:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the statement clearly includes a discussion of human health, and therefore a discussion about that statement is in my opinion a topic ban violation. Note that any discussion of human health/medical issues anywhere on Wikipedia would be a topic ban violation; there is not "safe" article or talk page where you can discuss issues regarding human health. I am pinging @Adjwilley: and @Beeblebrox: who placed the topic bans on you to get their input. Yobol (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is the statement in question, which undoubtedly discusses human health, and is the main thrust of the statement. To argue this statement does not discuss human health is not believable. Yobol (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In this diff, I do not make any mention whatsoever of the statement or its reception. I simply provide information on the publishers of sources provided by another editor. Your misleading and spurious claims that I have violated my topic ban are unwelcome. Along with the extremely caustic and demeaning language you used toward me above at "Editing other editor's talk page comments", I believe this is WP:Harassment. You may wish to consider striking through your comments while I decide on what further action I might take.DrChrissy(talk)15:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yobol, shouldnt you be off improving the project somewhere rather than trying to get people banned or blocked? If people like you spent half as much time on improving an article somewhere rather than on petty squabbles, the project would be much improved. CassiantoTalk15:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say there's probably a mild topic ban violation. For instance, in this diff you are discussing the relevance of this article as a source, and the article is clearly talking about human health. There's an exception for animal health in your topic ban, but you weren't clearly talking about animal health in the diff. I don't buy the argument that because the articles also talk about envirohmental and animal health they're fair game for you. The point of the topic ban was to keep you away from all articles related to human health, and MEDRS related discussions. Also, when someobody informs you of a possible topic ban violation, you need to take them very seriously, not argue about it and then accuse them of Harassment. ~Adjwilley (talk)16:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adjwilley - thank you for your carefully considered input. Please be reassured that I take extremely seriously, any suggestion that I might have violated my topic ban, but I respectfully reserve the right to defend myself if I believe that accusation is spurious. Please also accept that I have been, and continue to work extremely hard to avoid violating my topic ban. I could present many, many examples of how I have been doing this, but perhaps the most recent one happened just a few minutes ago. As you know, I regularly edit animal articles. I am currently editing the Ayrshire cattle article and I was researching characteristics of this breed. I found an article which discussed characteristics in general (e.g. behaviour, horn length), but also included information on milk yield (e.g. protein, fat, somatic cell count). I decided that using information on milk yield was (broadly construed) related to human health and so my introducing it into WP would violate my topic ban. I therefore did not include this content. I have been very, very careful not to discuss biomedical subjects, but sometimes, in fact very often, my primary editing topics of "animals" and "animal health" mean I use sources that also contain information on biomedical subjects and/or human health. For example, almost any book on laboratory animals will include biomedical content. Am I breaching my topic ban if I use such sources to edit WP whilst steering well clear of all discussion of biomedical/human health?DrChrissy(talk)17:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not reassured, as you apparently don't take it seriously enough to strike/remove the post in question, even though 3 users agree it's a topic ban violation. From what I've observed of your editing here, DrChrissy, your biggest weakness in my opinion, is that when somebody says that you're wrong on something, instead of seriously considering their argument you dig in on your original view, defending it regardless of what evidence the other side presents. (This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.) A recent example comes to mind where you argued really hard in favor of using some Journal of Astrobiology as a source about honeybees, despite multiple people saying the journal wasn't reliable. Eventually somebody took it to RS/N where it immediately came out that the journal was complete fringe that also reports on UFO sightings. Even then you still continued fighting, accusing people of attacking you personally. This kind of thing really bugs me, and will probably significantly shorten your Wikipedia career if it doesn't stop. ~Adjwilley (talk)03:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adjwilley I agree with that the single cited case was a mild topic ban violation. However, we've had multiple such violations already in discussions about human health where DrChrissy has claimed to be discussing things not directly on human health, but still indirectly influencing the overall conversation centered on human health. I'm not one to look right away to see people blocked, but I'm not so sure the topic ban is working here. Even an overlap with human and non-human means you stay far away with a topic ban, and we're dealing with far less than benign examples than the Ayrshire cattle example they gave above.
In the last few days, these two talk page sections show their involvement in discussions centered on human-health related content: [21], [22] (just search for their username rather than individual diffs for more context). Someone respecting their topic ban would know to stay away from those conversations completely, but also wouldn't skirt the topic ban to use an article talk page to pursue vendettas against other editors rather than discuss content.[23] We're still seeing some of the disruptive behavior that lead to the topic ban nested within these attempts to still remain tangentially involved in human health related content. Multiple cautions from others (even those siding with them on a specific piece of content) have not changed this trend. Since warnings don't appear to be working and you've been brought to this page at least three times already for DrChrissy "testing the limits" of their topic ban, what options do you see at this point? Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very interesting that you admit you can not provide diffs that I have actually violated my topic ban, instead, you send readers off on some chase to find "context". If this goes to a noticeboard, I think admins will expect much, much better of you.DrChrissy(talk)20:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already provided the posts. Please don't be obtuse. I already explained above that the purpose of those specific talk page discussions involved content on human health. Anyone, including yourself can find the posts just as easily as clicking a diff link where you have posted in those sections. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Those discussions were/are to do with GMO safety, not human health. You have not provided diffs which show I have made any comment whatsoever on human health. You appear to have ignored my posting below.DrChrissy(talk)22:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reiterate, the discussions I have entered are on GM safety not human health. If I have made any comment whatsoever on human health issues, please provide diffs.DrChrissy(talk)20:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Topic bans in general are rather absurd, seldom do much, and in this area, where there is a lot of controversy and fairly vicious attacks on anyone not promoting an industry position, I'd say it would be a good idea to just lift the ban instead of going around trying to play "gotcha" with people. Montanabw(talk)06:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Montanabw. I am pretty much coming to the same conclusion myself after months of each day looking over my shoulder working out whether material is going to be considered by others as human health related or non-human related. I am considering appealing my ban, or seeking clarification, based on this latest instance as this potentially leaves me unable to discuss/use any source which includes any mention of human health matters. This could include any text book on food animals, laboratory animals, assistance animals and more exotic topics such as dog meat. Topic bans are supposed to prevent disruptive behaviour and are not given as a punitive action. Which has been more disruptive? My providing the publishers of 4 mainstream articles, or the OP of this thread?DrChrissy(talk)09:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does restrict you greatly. You lost a significant chunk of freedom in Wikipedia by acting badly. I mentioned that to you above, and I said you are at risk of losing yet more. In any case, there is little to no chance that the topic ban would be lifted at this point.Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Welcome to my talk page. I reverted because the original image, in my opinion, is an animal in a more natural posture and with a more natural facial expression. The image is from wikicommons, so I believe is admissible on the article page. What criteria do you measure "quality" by? The image is clear, focused, no distracting background, etc.DrChrissy(talk)18:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit war warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Glyphosate. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
