This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jytdog. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Wikipedia's medical content would be so much more biased if it weren't for all your efforts to deal with POV editors. I'm awarding you this barnstar for your most recent efforts to suppress POV content changes at MDMA and in recognition of all of your past efforts (even the controversial ones) to deal with POV and COI editors on Wikipedia. I can't even imagine the state of disrepair that some articles would be in without your efforts to tackle blatant quackery and POV bullshit head-on. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, maybe I came here because I might have been thinking based on the section title that this was some form of insult, but I was clearly wrong. I have to agree with the appropriateness of the recognition. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
That sounds like something I would have said! Anyhoo, I looked at pizzle (kinda wish I hadn't), and I think it has the etymology wrong. I'm pretty sure it originated with Snoop Dog (are you related?). --Tryptofish (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC) PS: are you impressed at how gangsta I am?
So your the Rome fella that likes to stir things up on Wikipedia. And you obviously work for someone interested in keeping this information quite. What a way to make a living young man. Miratrixplane (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I checked that user's contribution history, and there are zero article edits to have been reverted. So this is either a sock or a troll (probably both). You are certainly entitled to raise the NLT issue at ANI if you think that it is worth the effort. Otherwise, I'd say wp:deny and see if that puts an end to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm puzzled about this revert of yours. The section I edited is titled "Notable users", Feynman is notable, the autobiography where he discusses it is itself notable, there's an entire chapter called "Altered states" about it. Obviously, a source for the fact that this is discussed in the book is the book itself. The statement being both sourced and relevant, I do not understand what more would be needed?
Regards,
--a3nm (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
You did not provide a source. A wikilink is not a source -- in fact WP articles are not reliable sources at all per WP:SPS. I reckon it would not be hard to provide independent sources showing this deserves WEIGHT, but per WP:BURDEN you need to do that now. Jytdog (talk)
I looked at those pages, can you be a little more specific on what was not followed? I cited a study published in a medical journal, if that study was too early or didn't include enough patients I can find a newer one. What part of it was promotional? I did mention the name of the implant, however, that is the only implant of its kind that exists. The name could removed though, if needed. Aortic patient (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
With regard to sourcing, please re-read the WP:MEDDEF section of MEDRS more closely - it says that we generate content about health based on secondary sources (literature reviews in good journals or statements by major medical/scientific bodies) and that we avoid primary sources as much as possible. Clinical trial publications are primary sources. Including the link to exstent.com and the youtube video make the content appear to advertising copy; WP is not a vehicle for medical marketing and it is not social media. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Vaxxed shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Byates5637 (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Please read this - it's generally frowned upon to use standard templates with long-established users. Also, from a quick look at the page concerned, a discussion on the article's Talk page is ongoing - you should input into that rather than making changes directly until consensus is reached. Mike1901 (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your note Mike but I really don't like DTTR; templates are for everybody in my view. This template was placed in retaliation however, and Byates5637 has been blocked for actually edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Revert in Deep brain stimulation
Dear Jytdog,
I am a bit puzzled that you deleted my visualizations of a deep brain stimulation electrode and it's connectivity from the DBS wiki page. May I ask what made you come to the conclusion that they were spam?
The reason why I added the visualizations to the wiki site is because I think the images may give both medical personell and patients a good insight into anatomy and a 3D representation of what's happening in the brain, where electrodes are placed and how the result of the procedure will look like. In comparison to the first image (an x-ray), which only gives a 2D representation, I'd say they clearly add information.
The reason I cited the software I made them with was to assure reproducibility. This is not needed if it bothered you. Also, please note that the toolbox software the images were made with is completely non-commercial and open source, it's development completely funded by public money.
I'd be happy if you would consider reverting your changes so that at least one of the images remains on the site. Alternatively, I'd be happy to see your reasons why you deleted the images.
Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.[1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.[2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
References
^This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
^Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.
Hello Jytdog - hope all is well. I was hoping you could provide some clarification as to your removal of my update to the "hangover" wikipedia page that noted: "One promising treatment for a hangover is a plant extract known as Hovenia dulcis (Japanese Raisin Tree Fruit Extract). In Korea, this extract is widely sold and distributed as a hangover remedy to be taken after one's last drink of the night to prevent a hangover. In the United States, a company called Life Support uses this same ingredient as a hangover cure and instructs users to consume the beverage as the last drink of the night to prevent a hangover[33]. A review on Hovenia dulcis published in 2010 noted that this extract presents a strong candidate for use in the treatment of alcohol hangover, primarily due to its alcohol detoxification properties. The review notes that "the increased level of alcohol-induced liver ALDH activity by treatment with H. dulcis extracts suggests that H. dulcis can effectively relieve the alcohol hangover through enhancing the catabolism of ethanol." [34] A second review published in Drug and Alcohol Review in 2005 noted that "it has now been proved that the extract of H. dulcis, or its complex formulae, hasten detoxification of alcohol," as well as noting that "the extracts of H. dulcis were also more effective in enhancing ALDH activity than ADH activity, [which] is one of the possible explanations of how H. dulcis could relieve hangover effectively, by decreasing acetaldehyde concentration quickly in the liver and blood." [35] In fact, the review notes that "Hovenia dulcis . . . [has] been used for centuries in China to relieve intoxication and hangover from excessive drinking." [36]" I realize that I originally added primary sources, as opposed to secondary sources, but my latest revision corrected that error. If you doubt the scientific accuracy, I would be more than willing to send you PDFs of the reviews for your review and to discuss with you the supporting research. Let me know when you get a chance. Thanks! 174.103.115.142 (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC) (1/13/2017 @ 8:52 PM) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.115.142 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Lot's wife shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Namarly (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
My first edit to Wikipedia was removing an advertisement from an article. I remember that I wanted to know what the hell a Turnkey system was (it came up peripherally in the course of my work) and had turned to WP and was just aghast at a blatant advertisement that had been stuck into it. So much that I created an account and removed it. Some things don't change. :) Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Well firstly, there was a "Brand®" that he added by him and was removed. So obviously he is trying to justify some treatment, and he is doing a bad job at it. He is using old(>10 years) primary sources, some from weird foreign journals.Petergstrom (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you
Hi! I wanted to thank you for your corrections to my early edits and for your messages on my profile. I'll study the materials provided to me for to learn proper editing. Once again, I thank you! NimbleNavigator (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I have closed a RFC you initiated here. The result was that biotechnology should be excised from the article on Silicon Alley completely. If you have any questions or concerns about this closure, please feel free to discuss them with me on my talk page. Thank you. Tazerdadog (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The article says Greger promotes a vegan diet, which is false. (For example, he warns against junk food vegan diets and college student vegan diets consisting of beer, coke and crisps.)
I added that he promotes a "whole food" plant-based diet. This term is written all over everything he publishes, so I don't see why this would get insta-reverted for being unsourced (when it's in all the existing sources in the references section of the article).
P.S. I find the "instantly revert everyone who's new to an article" to be an awful trend in Wikipedia. I think it's the reason Wikipedia is failing to retain new editors. I haven't looked at your edit history to see if you do this all the time, but I hope not. The people who do this are killing Wikipedia. Great floors (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I gave my rationale in the edit note. You added unsourced content and removed sourced content. I also replied on the talk page with respect to Hall, here. Please continue the discussion there if you wish. Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I removed duplicate content - and you revert everything
I removed the list. It seems you want to keep it. Fine, keep the 4 or 5 lines you have sources for and delete the rest.
But I also merged duplicate sentences, reducing redundant text. Why did you delete that?
You just revert everything. *This* is what drives people away from Wikipedia. Someone should lodge a complaint against you but we both know you have more time and better knowledge of the procedures, so I'd be wasting my time if I tried. Great floors (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
My *later* edits added some stuff that you could argue was unsourced (but I would say it's already in the existing refs), but my first edits were just merging duplicate content (adding *nothing*).
I have no idea what all your edits are. On articles I watch, you have added unsourced content and removed sourced content, and yes, policy-violating edits like that get reverted. I appreciate your enthusiasm but please do make sure you cite reliable sources per WP:RS or WP:MEDRS as is relevant, and please don't remove sourced content without a policy or guideline based reason. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Off-wiki handling of COI evidence
I wrote a very detailed reply to what you said at the harassment policy talk page, about maybe we should handle the private information off-wiki, and then found that you had self-reverted, so I figure it should not go to waste (wink). Here is what I was going to say:
About handling the information privately, another complication arises. I proposed WP:COILIST a few months ago, and the community reacted very negatively to functionaries investigating ToU-violating users in secret. So we have a pretty strong consensus against handling these things privately, but we also have lots of language in the current version of WP:OUTING that says that it's OK to email the information privately. Contradictory, and not a stable situation.
So hard to keep conversations at WT:OUTING focused! herding cats.
I think the "special function" got shot down. i don't think anyone opposes sending stuff to an admin offline on an ad hoc basis. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
That's not clear. There was a lot of sentiment that everything needs to be onsite, so as to be transparent about why someone was blocked. Also, a lot of opposition to anyone, including individual admins, conducting investigations of other editors. That's not really compatible with that kind of ad hoc. Obviously, there are tons of internal contradictions. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm really surprised to see that discussion since at least that would be official and more transparent than current off-wiki communications. Personally, when making accusations of UPE against someone, I want to be really sure that I'm right before presenting evidence and getting a second opinion is vital to that. I've certainly looked over users that people have had suspicions about and decided that there probably wasn't a problem. Keeping it private to begin with limits the chances of unnecessary drama and harassment. OTOH, there are cases where off-wiki evidence is a vital part of the reasons for being suspicious, but at the moment we have nowhere to report it. Bleurgh. SmartSE (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
(tps) Preferable to send emails to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org than to individual arbs. Gives greater certainty that it is seen and discussed. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, ArbCom, at least in the past, has been very firm about not wanting to be contacted about it. And I'm really not sure that the community has a consensus that this would be OK. Anyway, further about herding cats (I, of course, am a fish), I'm going to note at the policy talk page that this discussion exists here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Message
Hi, I got a notification that you sent me an e-mail but I can't read the message, it must be lost somewhere in my inbox. Just saying in case you wonder why I didn't reply. Polyamorph (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Seriously, man, I'm on your side on this issue. I don't like the fact that Arbcom and the community's attitude toward COI is somewhere between "meh" and shooting the messenger. But I'm honestly perplexed at what I did to give you the impression that I did. Definitely not saying it's your fault -- somehow, I screwed up in my attempt to communicate. Can you help me to say what I meant more clearly? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, and for your responses at jimbo's talk page. It was the first sentence "Jytdog and OID need to accept that they are on the wrong side of this issue. " that alarmed me so. The rest of what you wrote was fine, and we do agree there. That first sentence was just too condensed. I understand, pretty well, the range of views on OUTING and respect the core value of privacy here in WP. The hard work will continue at WT:HARASSMENT to see if we can craft some reasonable way to build consensus around providing more latitude to deal with paid editing. It might not be possible to reach any consensus given the very strong feelings people have about privacy and about paid editing which get in the way of discussion on several levels, the limitations of communicating by writing only (things happen like what happened between you and me), and the difficulty of the problem. Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
You reverted one of my edits with the comment "Spam". My edit was about adding a hyperlink to a webpage which was already cited in the article, so I think the edit is pretty legitimate and shouldn't be reverted as such. Now, either the reference is spammy and should be deleted altogether (on the face of it, I don't think it is the case), or the reference should be kept and then I guess it's only reasonable to have the hyperlink.
--a3nm (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, WP:CIR#Some common types (section Newby) is why I prefer finding a ref to deleting unsourced content if it can be done with reasonable effort . Although you might argue that with 300 content edits, the editor you reverted might have found out about citing sources by now... At any rate, I'm going to tell them now. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Jytdog. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The section above has gotten so convoluted that I've decide to start a new topic. This is in reply to your last response starting with "This is about my third draft reply." You continued with "You will either learn how this place works and why,..." Let me explain to you how I've learned about how the place works.
About a month ago I came on board. I looked at the list of requests for articles, and found that somebody requested one about convergent evolution in humans. That is in my wheelhouse, so I started composing 2 images with easy to see examples of c e involving humans, with the goal to make a subsection of the wp convergent evolution page and then a redirect page to it. Made the images. Got stuck in a quagmire of image copyrights. Eventually sorted that out while being involved in other things wp-related also. Finally, the time came to make my additions, and I discovered that the c.e. article had been nominated for GA status. sigh. I asked at the teahouse whether it was OK to edit an article nominated for GA review. They said, sure, it happens all the time. So, I did more digging to find out who nominated it, explained what I wanted to do on the talk page, and asked if it was OK. The editor told me to go for it.
I composed a subsection about human skin color and blue eyes, based upon 2 and only 2 primary sources, and supplemented with my 2 "collage" images. There were changes to my images. I understand why. It was interesting to see their evolution. I don't think all of the changes were improvements, but I understand why some of them were, and hope I won't make the same mistakes again. There were some changes to the text. The subsection became "primates". However, to this moment, "my" section, supported by 2 primary references, remains largely intact. To summarize, multiple "casual" editors allowed primary sources to be used. Yesterday, I got a belated Christmas gift: The c.e. article was rated GA! Imagine, me, a newbie, contributing to a GA article. Imagine "experienced/intense" editors allowing primary sources to be used! In case you haven't read this thought between the lines above, I'll write it. I dare you to eliminate the primate section because it is based on primary sources. I'll be interested to see how your edit is greeted by the community.
I was also involved in editing the article about VUS's. If you don't know what a VUS is, you should probably read the article now. You'll see that VUS's are important in clinical settings, and they are going to become increasingly important as DNA testing increases. VUS's will be detected in cffDNA. Parents will agonize over what to do. yada, yada.
As brief background, that article was started as a draft under a different title by a user not involved in it's recent evolution. Just before it was to expire from a long idle period, an editor moved it out of draft into mainspace. Another editor noticed it and started discussion about it on the genetics project talk page. It wasn't very good. I thought, again, that this is in my wheelhouse, and so, over a period of days, with the under construction banner on it, I went about extensive editing. There was a lot of discussion on the talk page. At one point, I almost told slashme (whom I now consider a pen pal)
to bite me There were lots of revisions to my edits. But, through this team approach, an article of interest to genetics, the general public, and (should be) to the medicine project has evolved, in spite of being supported by mostly primary sources, including one from 2017. It isn't a great article, IMHO, but it seems to have stabilized. I'd give it a C rating now. I hope to raise it to a B with a "further reading" section and the like at some point. But, for now, I don't have time because I'm involved in this debate with you. In case you haven't read this thought between the lines above, I'll write it. I double-dare you to eliminate the VUS article because it is based on primary sources. I'll be interested to see how your edit is greeted by the community.
You continued your "third draft" reply with "Why you choose to argue when you don't know what you are talking about..." I have chosen to argue because you, madam or sir, appear to me to be out of touch with standards of the community and the policy of wp, which clearly states that primary sources may be used.
You continued your "third draft" reply with "One thing that academics who come here have to wrestle with is ... loss of personal authority..." Yes, I did wrestle with that. I've come to embrace it. You, on the other hand, appear to me to want to personally be the authority over whether primary sources are appropriate, without discretion. I don't want about 90% of primary sources on wp pages. But, I use discretion to select those that I think are appropriate.
Now, I would join other wise wikipedians in suggesting that you have some tea while you consider whether you need to reconsider your approach, but I fear the stimulants would only make things worse. For me, dry roasted peanuts and sugar- and caffeine-free soda work, and, believe me, I've consumed a lot of both over the course of our discussions.
One of the reasons I have spent so much time on this topic is that I expect we will end up in an ani, and I want to be sure to be able to show that I've tried to educate you about the community standards I see regarding primary sources, and the wp policy that allows use of primary sources. @Tryptofish and Slashme:DennisPietras (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, you barely know what you are doing, and you continue to argue with me instead of trying to learn. Whatever. Please don't write here further unless you come ready to learn. Good luck, but based on how you are conducting yourself your career here looks like it will be unhappy and turbulent. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@DennisPietras: It is true that primary sources can be used as sources, but only with caution because they can be misinterpreted. Furthermore if an appropriate high quality secondary source is available, it should be used in preference to a primary source. When I first started editing here, I had an attitude much like yours. Primary scientific sources have undergone peer review and that should be good enough. Over the last several years, it has become painfully clear that a shocking large percentage of primary biomedical research simply cannot be repeated. An encyclopedias' mission is to state facts, not hypotheses. Without a secondary round of review, primary scientific results remain hypotheses, not fact. An encyclopedia should be held to a higher standard than the primary scientific literature. Boghog (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for using your talk page as a forum, Jytdog, but I want to respond to this discussion in general and in particular.
General:
Wikipedia gets a bad rap for being an unfriendly place. For example, although my father edits here very successfully and tolerates some flaming, my mother prefers to volunteer at Distributed Proofreaders, partly because she finds the community nicer. I have heard too often that people have stopped editing because Wikipedians are not nice, and that makes me sad.
In this discussion, I see too many aggressive and defensive statements, and too few collaborative statements. @DennisPietras: your comments along the lines of "I dare you to eliminate…" elicit the kind of feelings that humans should reserve for mastodons, and Jytdog, "you barely know what you're doing" feeds the fire.
Particular:
The Convergent evolution article isn't subject to WP:MED referencing rules, so it's not relevant to this discussion. Even if someone were to find the sources insufficient, a suitable response might be to slap a refimprove-section template at the top of that section, or to go and find some secondary sources, if it were to become particularly contentious for some reason.
The VUS article is supported by a mix of reference types, but you have raised a valid point: about half the references are research articles. I don't think that the article is particularly contentious, so maybe we should work through it, see which statements are supported by research articles, and decide whether better sources can be found. If not, we need to decide whether the statements in question need to be removed or rephrased, or whether they can stand as they are until secondary sources become available.
Many wikipedia articles are not compliant with policy. That usually doesn't mean that the policy is wrong or irrelevant, but rather that those articles need work, especially in the case of a hard-fought policy like WP:MED's referencing policy. When you find yourself saying anything along the lines of "other stuff exists", you need to pause and ponder. --Slashme (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I hear you Slashme. I put a bunch of time into the first few exchanges above and tried very hard to explain, carefully and nicely - and you will see that Dennis obviously didn't take time to read the links provided, and my responses have grown more curt as Dennis has persisted in arguing that their approach is OK. People need to find their own way here, and if they spit on a helping hand I send them on their way. As I said Dennis might end up being productive and happy but they are showing all the signs of being yet another academic who is too full of themselves to shut up, listen, and learn, and who will flame out one way or another. But as I said, we'll see. I hope they figure things out. I am closing this as I am uninterested in continuing to participate. I have tried enough. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikiproject Medicine and WikiJournal of Medicine are, generally causing me consternation
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. As background, I'm a newbie. Retired with disability after an academic career in biology, and wp has given me a reason to get out of bed, which I haven't had for most of the last 3 years. I am a pretty active editor: you've seen at least one of the pages I've edited, so I feel I need to explain my consternation. WikiJournal of Medicine is intending to publish the dreaded Original Research articles. FANTASTIC, IMHO. Yet, wp in general, and Wikiproject Medicine in particular, generally frown on OR. Does this make any sense to you? It doesn't to me.
You welcomed me at my talk page with what I assume is a standard template, including both the statements "be bold" and "We find "accepted knowledge" for biomedical information in sources defined by WP:MEDRS -- we generally use literature reviews published in good journals or statements by major medical or scientific bodies and we generally avoid using research papers,"
So, what am I to do: be bold or restrain my enthusiasm and not make edits based on OR?
It is not acceptable to me to keep this consternation "bottled up" inside me and overheat from stress.
You reverted my addition of new research published in PNAS to the genetic testing article. On what basis? Your own policy, and the poliy of the project, states that you generally avoid using research papers. If you won't accept a research article in PNAS, what, specific, articles would you accept? Those from WikiJournal of Medicine perhaps? You removed my link to the mayoclinic.org site. THE reason I inserted that was the banner statement that the "article ...relies too heavily on primary sources." I see that there are 67 references! I think "what more do they need?" So, I search for a secondary source from the mayo clinic, insert it, and you revert it and put the banner back up. If you think you can find better sources, then find them.
In summary, it is my opinion that you are being overly-zealous and are not using appropriate judgement in the application of the concept of "generally avoid using research papers." I'm not going to revert your reverts. I'll stick to basic biology, unless you revet them yourself. DennisPietras (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your note! (and I mean that!! I am so happy you wrote instead of letting anger/resentment build up.) :)
OK....
First of all, the WP:OR policy applies to articles in Wikipedia. Articles published in a journal outside of WP (i.e. "WikiJournal of Medicine") are not in Wikipedia, and so OR doesn't apply. Right? (I will note that to the extent the WikiJournal of Medicine is publishing actual WP articles, those articles in Wikipedia remain subject to OR.) Everything i write here will be relevant only to stuff in Wikipedia, not outside it.
So, yes, please don't add any OR to Wikipedia. It is not OK.
You might want to have a read of WP:EXPERT which is really helpful for folks like you.
I think one thing is that is tripping you up is the way the terms "primary", "secondary", and "tertiary" sources are used behind the scenes in Wikipedia. This is a paradigm brought over from historiography, that is applied widely and kind of strangely behind the scenes here in WP.
For content about health/biology, these three terms are defined in WP:MEDDEF which is part of MEDRS.
With regard the PNAS article, it is a "primary source" as we use that term. And Mayo Clinic's website is not what we consider a reliable secondary source, as Mayo is not a "major scientific/medical organization" (by that we mean NIH, NHS, CDC, WHO, AAAS, any of the major medical societies like the American College of Radiology etc. -- Mayo is just another hospital (a leading one yes) but hospital/medical school websites have all kinds of unreliable content on them)
You might want to have a look at this section of my Userpage, User:Jytdog#NPOV_part_1:_secondary_sources, which explains why Wikipedia in general is built on secondary sources. You might also want to see an essay I started, called WP:Why MEDRS? as well, which explains why MEDRS defines "secondary sources" the way it does and why the community developed MEDRS and tries hard to apply it consistently.
A lot of this comes down to the ... er.. epistemology of Wikipedia, and our mission.
Actually, I'm surprised at the idea that the Mayo Clinic's website is not MEDRS, whereas the NIH or AAAS websites would be. (Of course, context and specifics matter.) I wouldn't cite Mayo's website for content about how one of their physicians is super-wonderful, but then again, I'd be cautious about using NIH's website that way for one of their scientists. However, it seems to me that Mayo's website (to a greater degree than websites from other major hospitals) really does provide the medical consensus as opposed to their personal medical practices. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is not reliable. Hospitals/med schools are in fierce competition with each other and the stuff they post can be really, really awful especially on alt med topics. That is why they are different than NIH and other such institutions. At one point somebody slipped Mayo into MEDRS and when we noticed it, we discussed it and took it out. See archived section here. Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Reply to the real question "Does that make sense?" No. Again, I point out that the exact quote uses the word "generally" and I believe you are substituting the word "always". I have no problem with "generally". I have a continuing problem with "always" without reasonable, IMHO, consideration of the quality of the primary source. By removing additional coverage of current, excellent primary sources, you are forcing wp to be "behind the times", which I consider to be a pity, and you won't see me trying to update your out of date articles. DennisPietras (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Yep, "generally" means "do that unless you have some very good reason not to." Wikipedia is not "cutting edge" and it is not the mission to be cutting edge. "Accepted knowledge" (our mission) is territory pretty far back from the cutting edge. If you don't understand that you are going to be unhappy here. Jytdog (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Slashme: I would like you to point me to an accepted "mission statement" from wp. I can't find one, but then again I'm a newbie. I do see that even in the welcoming message you sent me, the advice is to be bold in updating pages. If that doesn't imply a desire to be at the cuting edge, I must not be reading the Inglush properly. Perhaps you've forgotten some wp policies on using original research papers from peer-reviewed journals as primary sources, or perhaps the policies have changed since you learned them. In any case, in an effort to inform, I have captured the material below from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
The bold emphasis is mine, to more easily draw attention to things you may be missing.
"Using sources
Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly.
Reliable sources
In general, the most reliable sources are:
Peer-reviewed journals
Primary, secondary and tertiary sources
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources
Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.
Primary sources
Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
So, the next time you think you are justified in removing one of my additions, I suggest that you discuss it first and point out exactly how it doesn't fall under the real, rather than any imagined, wp guidelines. DennisPietras (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I very much understand where you are coming from. Lots of scientists come here with misunderstandings about Wikipedia and get all belligerent when folks try to help them see Wikipedia for what it is. (There is nothing new under the sun here - you are not the first to think and behave this way) I am sorry you are uninterested in learning how WP actually works. Being what we call clueful and editing however you like by cherrypicking bits of the policies and guidelines are very different things. Please read WP:CLUE - it is very short. It takes time to learn, and a willingness. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I was tagged in this discussion by User:DennisPietras, so I'm adding my 0.02 for what it's worth. When you are encouraged to "update" pages, that doesn't in any sense imply that you need to get them up to the bleeding edge of current science. Taking into account the fact that most published research is wrong,[1] I agree with the Wikipedia Medicine point of view of considering research articles, even peer-reviewed articles, as primary sources, and relying instead on less volatile sources.
As for the question of the basic policies of Wikipedia, the five pillars are probably the closest that you will find.
References
^Ioannidis, John P. A. (30 August 2005). "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False". PLoS Medicine. 2 (8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
@Slashme:"Cherrypicking bits of policies"? The wp policy is that primary sources can be used. You appear to me to be unwilling to accept that policy, and are determined to enforce your own policy. I look forward to our next disagreement and taking it to arbitration to see if the wp policy or the jytdog policy rules. I'll even tag you the next time I insert coverage of a primary source into one of the medicine project articles to make it easy for you. DennisPietras (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@DennisPietras: It's really not fair to call that "jytdog policy". WP:PSTS describes the use of primary sources in general, across most Wikipedia article topics. But for medical and health-related content, there really is a consensus at Wikipedia that WP:MEDRS is the guideline that sets a higher standard for sourcing that kind of content. Wikipedia set similar special rules for articles about living persons. It's quite appropriate to have subject-specific sourcing requirements, and there is wide agreement about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
User:DennisPietras as I said there is nothing new under the sun. Another inexperienced and aggressive editor was trying to force content about health into WP based on primary sources, and went and filed an ANI - you can see how people responded here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Fulvestrant. You are editing against both policies and guiidelines -- all of which say we should use secondary sources. Of course one can but that is not the point. There are a lot of things one can do but shouldn't. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Tryptofish, Slashme, and Jytdog: I have read the consensus link that Tryptofish provided. That is in general, and it indicates that consensus can change. If there exists a policy that jytdog has adopted, then, IMHO, it is fair to call it "jytdog policy". I read how people responded to the ani above. I'm looking forward to reading how people will respond to my ani if the jytdog policy is enforced again, in spite of my reasoning that will be explained on the talk page. Taking a step (maybe two) back, I was a molecular biologist/geneticist. I haven't read what the complainer above wrote on the talk page, but I assure you I won't use profanity. My edits will not involve drug dosages. I'm not going to post discussions about results dependent upon establised cell lines or antibodies. If I do, delete them and redirect me to that promise. I intend to post discussions of basic molec bio/gen from respected journals that happen to fall on pages that the medicine project has tagged. I ask that you use common sense and discretion when you view my edits. As a further step back, 4 decades ago, when I was an undergrad doing research, a grad student in a lab across the hall was getting fantastic results. She was a bit odd, but the results got published in a very prestigious journal. Later, nobody else in the lab could replicate the results. The suspicion was that she slipped some radioactive P into vials before scint coounting, and the paper was retracted. During my career, in addition to that incident, I have known 2 other people, one postdoc and one grad student, who obviously/apparently fudged results. I knew an undergrad working in the lab of a declining full professor who came to me to ask for advice after the prof asked him if there wasn't something he could do to make the data better. I'm not wet behind the ears. I believe there has been enough said here on this subject. There are sooooo many articles that need to be improved; let's get to work! DennisPietras (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
This is about my third draft reply. You will either learn how this place works and why, or you will get more frustrated and either leave here angry or get thrown out of here. Why you choose to argue when you don't know what you are talking about (nor expressed any interest in understanding why the community put these policies and guidelines in place) is beyond me, but that is the road you seem to be choosing. No, your edits will not get special treatment; nobody's do.
It would seem that you have the potential to make a lot of good contributions here but you are currently taking the path of most resistance - the path that leads away from that. One thing that academics who come here have to wrestle with is simultaneous loss of personal authority and the experience of not understanding what the heck is going on (there really is nothing new under the sun here - I have seen this many, many times.) Some people handle that better than others. We will see how your path unfolds. But really, you would do much better to treat WP as a strange new world and try to explore it and understand it before you make proclamations about it. It is a strange world - the way this place is wired from the ground up makes it work differently than what people expect when they first come here. But it actually makes sense, in a very deep and coherent way. The use of secondary sources is way down deep in the guts of WP, as I said earlier. Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@DennisPietras:, I never said anything about cherrypicking bits of policy. I'm not sure whether you're aware of this, but your style of communication can come across as polemical and confrontational, and that can lead other editors to be confrontational in return. Bear in mind that most Wikipedia edits aren't urgent: after someone reverts your edit, there's plenty of time to go through the WP:BRD cycle. A worthwhile quote from that page is "Care and diplomacy should be exercised. Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient." --Slashme (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
In the interest of being constructive and moving the article forward, I took a look around, and it seems that the term "second generation" isn't that widely reported in the literature about cffDNA, but I did find a good book source that says that it's the most specific and sensitive screening test for Down syndrome, so I added that fact. --Slashme (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Slashme: Clearly, I'm a newbie and don't now how these discussions work, and this one is getting so complicated/convoluted that it is difficult to follow. I know that you didn't write about cherrypicking. jytdog did above. I pinged you to let you know that I wrote a response and you appear to be interested. I didn't ping jytdog because this is her/his page. Thus, my response wasn't to you. I used the ping to you more like a "cc" in email. Is there some other technique for doing that on wp that I should be using? Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@DennisPietras:, the "ping" template is relatively new, so I'm not sure whether there are any clear rules yet, but if you look at the paragraph in question it starts: »@Slashme:"Cherrypicking bits of policies"? The wp policy is that primary sources can be used.« That makes it look as if you're directing that comment at me. If that's not your intention, it's probably best to ping other users at the end of your comment, saying something like {{Ping|Slashme}}: what is your opinion? --Slashme (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MEDRS
Wikipedia has a problem if it doesn't allow primary medical literature to be cited. The sites have reverted to citing medical textbooks that are 15 years out of date and are written by people who are educators, but not experts in the field. There is no higher quality of citation that to cite the primary source, period. Citing mediocre "reviews" in an attempt to reduce bias (good luck) is not going to make this a useful resource for the public, which is likely why academic publishing requires primary citation. Well, lesson learned. Farewell, wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autoimmunity rev (talk • contribs) 17:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry you feel that way. Articles do need updating and other work and the more people we have the better! But no, we use primary sources rarely and gingerly. There are lots of reasons for that. Happy to discuss, if you like.Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, the Paul Horner article is on my watch list, so I noticed your reverts here and here. The rationale you provided was: "not about Horner". However, the edits you reverted were indeed about Horner. Please can you explain those reverts, or else undo the second one if the reverts were in error? Thanks. zazpot (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Happy to discuss on the article talk page, if you'll put your comment there. This kind of discussion should be centralized. Jytdog (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I notice on your user page that you "find the best sources [you] can for articles you work on". To me this implies that you do research, but maybe this assumption is incorrect. I am saying this because what I am seeing, when you characterize the Academic journals project, it is way off the mark. To me it comes off as kind of arrogant. I guessing you don't intend it to be this way, but that is how it comes across. Also, the comments come across as quite demeaning - as if your view is more accurate than other editors who work on this project.
I have done some intense research for the almost the entire set of Metamaterials articles on Wikipedia. I started and built many of these. Other topics I wrote also entailed research. I mean searching through scientific journal articles that describe the topic and everything related to the topic. I have worked on Physics articles, and had to read journal articles for this activity. It seems to me that you have done nothing like this by the way you characterize the Academic journals project. I can see, after how ever many days on this talk page, that you truly don't understand it - even after feedback you have been receiving, which doesn't seem to sink in. I'm just letting you know. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I appreciate you wanting to talk directly and in a less ... noisy environment.
Sorry for coming across arrogantly; not my intention. I am getting strident probably after repeating myself a bunch of times.
Definitely agree that communication is failing.
I am acutely aware that i am communicating across cultures/boundaries. It is not that I think anybody there is ignorant or incompetent, it is just that something has become normal in your project that seems bizarre to me and to others. (I addressed this issue explicitly on the Talk page in the 2nd paragraph starting with "Everybody here is busy..." here - please do read that if you haven't seen it).
Maybe breaking down the main message into smaller bits? The main message I have been trying to communicate, is 1) that you all take it as very normal and obvious that journal indexes are reliable sources themselves for notability. and 2) this is just... abnormal in the wider project and surprising; and 3) NJOURNALS doesn't explain about indexes at all; and 4) the recent turmoil is about 80% driven by this; and 5) it would be useful for everybody if NJOURNALs did explain.
Yes, I recall, the 2nd paragraph you wrote and I guess this all started with that first "fringe" journal that went to AfD. We both agreed that a using this guide as a bright-line rule is inappropriate. I still agree with that. Moving on - I find it shocking that people have a hard time understanding that the indexes are very good indicators of a given journal's influence and serve as reliable sources. But, I suppose, it is what it is.
The third paragraph I proposed yesterday somewhat explains the indexes and that is just a start. However, can you see the explanation in there? It gets into some detail, but maybe not the finest detail.
After re-reading your last blurb I understand Randykitty's approach better and I understand the resistance to it. I think the resistance is because it wasn't clear what the parameters of that particular essay are. I'll work on this more during the week. Also, hopefully this will be in addition to what is already there in NJOURNALS, otherwise I fear there will be more resistance.
Just so you know, I felt bad after posting the original post, because I know you are a good person. But once something like that is posted there is no way to actually delete it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
You are so kind!! thanks so much for talking. i took your initial post in stride and what i heard was "you are being too harsh and are frustrating me but let's talk more". Your whole post at talk:NJOURNALS was a huge step forward and your proposals there are too. Am just looking for more of a narrative - three or four sentences - that explains why NJOURNAL uses indexes and how. i hope that is not too much to help people who haven't thought it through or lived there way into understanding that already. thx again. Jytdog (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Jytdog - sorry I haven't gotten to writing this just yet. It seems I have been making the rounds to other conversations and even created a new article [1]. So, I will try to write this up over the weekend.
Then we can critique it? . Anyway, things are cooler and calmer now, regarding this issue. So, it may be easier to write with some perspective (I'm guessing) --Steve Quinn (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Learning the ropes
I like to involve and be a watcher of bureaucratic side of Wikipedia and other existing stuff in Wikipedia other than content editing. Can you suggest links that would help in better understanding of this. When i say other stuff I don't exactly know what compromises other stuff. I have seen GA nomination -I don't the necessary rules or at what page they are happening, Guild of Editors - my understanding is some sort of article correction team -I haven't seen or know at what page it happens, now a bit above I see about Distributed Proofreaders - where does it happen in wikipedia, I have seen this arbcom notifications in many pages - cant get a good picture about it, a word I recently saw is villagepump and functionaries in comments - i don't understand that wiki lingo, in your recent contributions i see this https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/ - what is it. Can you help me in getting good understanding of these few things mentioned above and provide links about what other things are there in Wiki.117.241.55.2 (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Since there is only one article citing the new synthesis of diketene, does that mean it cannot be placed on the page? And why did I not get a notification that my post was removed? I added it back in because I thought it did not save, perhaps a message would have prevented the extra work on both our parts. Grnltrn5 (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the restoration. Per WP:DUE we look for secondary sources to show that something is noteworthy; we don't include every primary source about any scientific matter. This place would be an endless set of summaries if we did. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
You have added an article to this link[1] to Wikipedia, to a page on nutrition. The article is written by a freelance journalist, is largely a picture of a dinner plate, doesn't cite a single reference, quotes "Crime Writers" as medical sources, and is non-scientific. Please read it before re-adding it.
Hi - it's my first time making a proposal like that, so thank you for pointing out things I was missing. I hope it is clearer now. I think that there is too much emphasis in the lead on him being a doctor and too little on what I think is the most important fact about him - that he promotes woo on TV to millions of people. I'm just going based on news articles though, so as I said on the page, if there are other sources I should be looking at, then I can do that. Everything I read seemed to be about his TV show though and the garbage on it. 45.72.157.254 (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks like glutamine was one of your New Year's resolutions! I am still plugging away at dietary supplements, vitamins, minerals and amino acids - mostly removing content that is based on flimsy primary sources or derivative sites (Livestrong, anyone?). And if there are good, recent meta-analyses or systemic reviews, referencing those as MEDRS. Especially in supplement land there is a tendency to find the one obscure, old, small (more adjectives) clinical trial in support of a theory, and insert that as evidence. I still personally feel that Cochrane Reviews discriminate against supplement evidence by using very rigid exclusionary criteria, but I am not deleting any Cochrane-based content or references. Anyway, persevere.David notMD (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
Would you please share your views on redirecting the ENO Drugs page to Antacid. I don't understand why Doc James has redirected the ENO Drugs page which is running from 2005 to antacid stating brand to generic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravi Wildnet (talk • contribs) 13:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
In general WP:MED has been redirecting articles about specific products to articles about the generic. That's the reasoning here. Not sure about this one, will open a section on Talk:Antacid. Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Actually I am in learning phase in Wikipedia. I have started just before 3-4 months. I have seen many brand pages are running separately instead of getting redirected to generic. For example 'Tylenol (brand)' has its on Wikipedia page. Tylenol is brand of Paracetamol. So I don't understand why it is so. Can we do something so that ENO has its own wikipedia page. Ravi Wildnet (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Reply
Sorry if this isn't the correct format; I just wanted to make sure you saw my question. Please point me to a link if there is a better way to do this.
I want to understand why the version of the edit that I submitted today -- the one with the second source -- is not considered to be "well-sourced", or the language not neutral? It is sourced entirely by verifiable public statements, and is entirely factual.
I have contributed to that discussion, by now, but do not feel enlightened yet. The standard that you and another editor seem prepared to apply to my edit is a higher standard of evidence than has been applied to the other conspiracy theory claim present already in the same paragraph of the article we are discussing. I don't see how it is "original research" to juxtapose the documented statement by the subject of the article with a documented account of what actually happened - there doesn't seem to be any reason why the documentation of what happened should refer to the person making the conspiracy theory claim. If there is a quibble about "unfounded" versus "unproven" claims, I would be happy to have the text read "unproven". Newimpartial (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
WT:HA
You are over-reacting, and it is off-putting. I am now going to log out, and will not reply to anything until tomorrow. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the note! (I mean that) I understood that you perceive it that way from what you wrote at WT:HA as well as here. I am sorry you do not see the issue I am raising. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm back – and I want to thank you for a very good reply to me here. And I can see from the talk section just below this one that there are obviously differences in perception. I honestly don't think that anyone is questioning your intelligence, good intentions, or anything else like that. Rather, I believe that this is a case of people just not understanding each other. I'll comment more on the merits of the issues there. Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I remain very much disturbed by what happened. I am not sure what to do about this behavior issue or what board I would even bring it to. The irony of it, is that OR's comments were totally about contributor not content and deeply violated basic operating principles here. And they stopped the discussion dead. A sitting arbitrator has done this, and arbcom governs OUTING violations. Totally chilling. And I ask myself (not you or anybody else) - what does this mean with respect to me appealing my TBAN? OR's !vote appears to be already determined.
In any case I am not going to participate any further in discussions about amending OUTING. I see no reason why it would not lead to more bad behavior like that, which will derail the discussion again and prevent progress again. Better I just stay out of it. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, a significant reason why I started this section on your talk page was exactly that I am concerned that your conflict at HA will result in a negative decision on your appeal. I hoped that a peaceful resolution might have improved the chances of you getting a favorable decision. I really was thinking that. Maybe I'm just missing something, and if so, it certainly won't be the first time that I've made a mistake. But I just do not think that OR was saying that sort of thing about you, nor that it "stopped the discussion dead". Instead, I think that your reaction to her comments is what stopped the discussion. And I think that it would be a pity if you end up staying out of the discussions, because you are very smart and experienced and you have a lot of good ideas to contribute. I don't think anyone wants you to go away. Maybe the best course of action would indeed be to stay away for however long it takes for this incident to blow over, as well as for you to feel like your own disturbed feelings have softened with time, as they will. When it feels right to you, I hope that you will come back to the discussions, because nobody considers you unwelcome there. Another strategy if and when you do come back, is to simply stay away from interacting with anyone who makes you feel uncomfortable. That's something that I have done numerous times, and it's just a matter of which talk sections to get into and which editors to reply to. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts and intentions. I hear you about the effects of my reaction on the discussion. I agree that the discussion turned into a train wreck of which I am part, and that nobody wants to participate in a train wreck.
I struggle with your discussing this as a matter of my feelings and comfort; I believe that OR acted badly and doubled down on that, and I think I am going to bring this to a board. Am still thinking and am drafting to see if I can describe this in a way that makes a concise and coherent argument. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I respect anyone who struggles with any problem. Please let me clarify that all that I meant, as regards your feelings, is that I wish you well (and we all have feelings), and that I carefully repeated your own word of "disturbed", so that I could avoid attributing anything to you that was original research on my own part. That said, if you do decide to make a complaint, and please give it careful thought before taking any action, I will certainly try to see all sides, but based on what I know now, I am likely to comment disagreeing with you and taking OR's side. Just so you know. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Of course the elephant in the room is that I am currently under a TBAN on COI matters because I violated OUTING. Perhaps because of that people will see it is as fully justifiable to derail any discussion I open about OUTING to question my assumptions. There is that. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that's inevitably true. (And I know that some editors see my own efforts in that area as some kind of psychiatric issue on my part, when I'm actually trying to fix some things that I came to see as needing fixing.) Anyway, all the more reason not to get people pissed off at you. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
