User talk:7157.118.25a: Difference between revisions

Welcome!

Hello, 7157.118.25a! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 08:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

7157.118.25a, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi 7157.118.25a! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

howdy!

Just saying "hi" over here. Welcome, again, and good luck! I hope you have a better time of it, this time. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciated the notification about the dispute earlier. --7157.118.25a (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Álvaro José Negret (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to CT, Conservation, Guilford and CIAT

List of birds of Telangana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Yellow wagtail and Small blue kingfisher

Eitan Tchernov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Conservation

Hermagoras Society (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hermagoras

Isaac Leib Goldberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hibbat Zion

NBC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Today Show

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate it, changes made. --7157.118.25a (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

edits

hey man, you are being very confrontational and making strong statements, but to be frank i do not believe that you understand the subject matter. you are making word salad. you really should not be pushing this hard on stuff that you don't understand. You are interested in lots of other stuff and i think your time would be spent more productively, and more pleasantly, elsewhere. again i am sorry to say this. i would have emailed this to you but you don't make an email available. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC) (striking, sorry I wasted your time Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC))

If the cases only involved changes in genitalia from estrogen/androgen, and not actual sexual behavior, your point would be valid. However, the material clearly involved changes in behavior as well, with males engaging in homosexual behavior when treated with estrogen and females engaging in it when treated with androgen. This is why the first paper dealt with changes on brain development from these steroid/hormone products, because it's not just genitals being affected but actual brain gender preference by these artificial chemicals. So all of the research is valid and should not have been removed.

And I am not trying to be 'confrontational' but I do not like reversion of well-sourced material without a valid basis. You seem to be trying to equate intersex changes with changes in sexual behavior, both of which are involved when addressing estrogen/androgen effects. It's not an either/or scenario. --7157.118.25a (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

oh man, you really are going to push this? I really don't want to go through the science lesson with you. it is not that magical. really its not. (and that you talk about "artificial chemicals" here but talk about Genistein as a sample chemical on the article Talk page.... c'mon). Please let this go. you are really in the deep end here. You really don't have a leg to stand on, per MEDRS. Please believe me. Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC) (striking, sorry I wasted your time Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC))

Yeah, I did put a lot of thought and research into writing that, and I do think the material is defensible. Why do you contest the Genistein reference? The page itself seems to support my point, see Genistein#Effects_in_males. I've encountered the WP:MEDRS policy before though it's been a while, and am making a good faith effort to find sources that conform to its standards. The MEDRS standards are probably the most confusing policy section on all of Wikipedia of course, which makes it tough to define what does and doesn't qualify, but I am interested in finding sources that conform to the section. --7157.118.25a (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

by the way I urge you to avoid writing things like "Will wait 24 hours for discussion on talk page to occur about edits, and give Jytdog time to explain reverts. ". I am sure you didn't intend it that way, but that is really aggressive. Does not help you. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC) (striking, sorry I wasted your time Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC))

(In response to your first paragraph) Yeah, maybe you're right. I am trying make a good faith effort to talk things out here though. I just felt strongly that the edits were defensible. Right after your edits, someone completely removed the polling demographics section also, not just some but all, over a feeling there was undue weight. So I was a bit annoyed at the moment from that, not to mention the User:Flyer22 canvassing (which I never bothered mentioning though I could have). --7157.118.25a (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

and what you write here has a glint of something that is much more human and reasonable, and flexible, than what you wrote on the article page. Here you acknowledge that you are not that familiar with MEDRS; you are actually not that sure of the sourcing. I can work with people who can admit things like that and write accordingly. I am utterly, completely, uninterested in dealing with your ego, or anybody else's. The more inflexible and arrogant any editor is, the more I will not even try to help, but will just tell the editor what is wrong with his or her proposal. The more flexible and humble and trying to work together another editor is, the more I get invested and put in my own time and help build. I am very responsive to the stances other editors take. But I urge you not to bullshit me. and your stance on the article Talk page - your strong assertion that the sourcing is good - is bullshit. please don't waste my time with that. Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC) (striking, sorry I wasted your time Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC))

and genistein is a natural chemical. your tossing it around with "artificial chemicals" in the word salad is... just ugh. are you chemophobic generally, btw? Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC) (striking, sorry I wasted your time Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC))

(In response to your second paragraph, included after I'd written above response) Alright, see now criticizing ego and throwing around terms like inflexible and arrogant is at least as antagonistic than my reference to 24 hours. Especially when using terms like "bullshit" or "word salad." I do think there was some good sourcing. It should be clear that the information itself is verifiable and has been prominent in the news.

As far as chemistry, I'll admit that's not my strong suit when it comes to science, I prefer archaeology and astronomy personally. As for Genistein, my impression is that some natural chemicals can be used artificially as well. Some that occur naturally get extracted and used in ways that are unnatural. In the case of Genistein, it may occur naturally, but seems to be a cancer agent that causes irregular hormone changes in nature, which ought to tell you that it's not being used naturally. --7157.118.25a (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

whatever. You are taking the stance you are taking. Thats how it will be. I really, really hate dealing with bullshit. One of the few things that gets me emotional here. And by "emotional" I mean cold. Jytdog (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Your objection then is to my "stance" not my understanding? Why not just be straightforward about that then? --7157.118.25a (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC) (striking, sorry I wasted your time Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC))

what is vague in my very first sentence above? sometimes I can talk people off the ledge. sometimes not. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC) (striking, sorry I wasted your time Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC))

Not entirely sure which sentence you refer to, but if the stance sentence, you did use the word stance which suggests ideological disagreement with the proposed edits is the basis of your opposition, not concern for the sourcing. Maybe I'm wrong but the word choice was interesting. --7157.118.25a (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

what i am saying is simple. when i run into an editor who doesn't really know what they are talking about but says it taking a strong stance (what I said in the first sentence) - in other words, when they are bullshitting - I try to talk them off the ledge. if they soften, i help them. if they persist, I stop trying to help them. bullshit is what i care about. ideology is your bag. from where i sit, bullshit is ideology-agnostic - you find it across the ideological spectrum. Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC) (striking, sorry I wasted your time Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC))

In other words you want me to admit my position was wrong and I just didn't "know what [I was] talking about", which is a way of saying I need to agree with your position and abandon mine - which isn't going to happen. I remain convinced the proposed edits are based in fact and supported by the sources. I can admit I need to work a bit on style and wording when it comes to the finer points of WP:MEDRS which I am making a good faith effort to do. That's the most I am going to concede. I've always been willing to talk things through and achieve mutual understanding. What I am not willing to do is change my positions unless persuaded otherwise from factual evidence. --7157.118.25a (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

nope, not what i am trying to say. not at all. you seem to be in battleground mode and can't hear me. that happens, but it is too bad. see you on the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC) (striking, sorry I wasted your time Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC))

Well, you do keep using phrasing like "didn't know what they are talking about" and "bullshit is what i care about. ideology is your bag" and then expect me to not react in battleground mode... --7157.118.25a (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

canvassing

Pinging Jytdog via WP:Echo to the article talk page is not a violation of the WP:Canvassing guideline. And WP:MEDRS is a guideline, not a policy, but it should be adhered to. Flyer22 (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It was pretty clearly canvassing, your goal was not to improve the article but find someone who would agree with you against me. You engaged in campaigning when pinging, also. --7157.118.25a (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

and this is petty distraction; the two of are wasting your time with this, in my view. let's deal with the content. my only concern in the article is that the science be accurately described per PAG.Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC) (sorry I wasted your time Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC))

Like I said earlier, I chose not to focus on the canvassing in favor of a fact-based discussion. I've been trying to focus on content this entire time and will continue in doing so. It just takes time to review sources and do a source-by-source analysis. --7157.118.25a (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

whatever, this is not interesting to me. Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC) (sorry I wasted your time Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC))

If what I did is WP:Canvassing, then it is an acceptable form of WP:Canvassing...considering that many Wikipedians do it without getting in trouble for it. And, yes, having you adhere to WP:MEDRS is improving the article. But go ahead and ask at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing if what I did -- asking a fellow WP:Med editor who knows WP:MEDRS well and who had previously interacted with you -- was inappropriate WP:Canvassing, and see how many people there agree with you on that. Flyer22 (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If doing so will just mention the words and actions involved without identifying users involved to avoid biasing the result. --7157.118.25a (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but Jytdog has been involved with the Homosexuality article before his interaction with you there, and he is well-versed in medical topics and knows WP:MEDRS well; notifying him passes what is considered appropriate WP:Canvassing. But then again, the WP:Canvassing guideline currently mentions nothing about pinging editors via WP:Echo. Flyer22 (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)