Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:42, 2 September 2014

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Welcome!

Hello, Jytdog, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Edcolins (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Special:Notifications

Thank you for being one of Misplaced Pages's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

	The Cure Award
	In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Misplaced Pages. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Please check talk page

Hello Jytdog, please check the talk page of ZMapp, i think we could improve the production section further. Also the paper cited (MB-003) refers to a modified magnifection procedure, not pharming. Please reply over there. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course. Jytdog (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ebola Virus Disease

Hello Jytdog, I see that you and several others changed the opening paragraph of the Ebola Virus Disease, causing a few inconsistencies. The reference name=CDC2014Out needs to be left at the end of the first paragraph, because otherwise there is no citation for the typical incubation period. Also all references I have seen do not say that the bleeding starts after other symptoms have stared; if the temporal order you have reverted to is true, you or somebody else needs to support it with a citation.--Gciriani (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't touch that part of the lead. Discussion belongs on the Talk page of the article in any case, so everybody can see it. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I had compared revisions incorrectly. I reposted the argument above in the Opening paragraph talk for Ebola--Gciriani (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

no problem, fast moving article! Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog, let me know why the WHO go-ahead for untested drugs was reverted by you - it should be in the main article, IMHO. Huhshyeh (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Huhshyeh

please discuss on the article's Talk page. high level note for you -- nothing should be in the lead that is not in the body - please do not drop content in the lead of any article, without checking to see if it is in the body (and if it is not, put it there first, then step back and review the whole article, and decide if it really belongs in the lead or not). thanks. (btw I will not discuss further here) Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: the CDC

See the talk page and my previous edit summaries on this subject, or CDC official: "All must get involved in Ebola fight" from one of Liberia's premier periodicals: it's the Congress for Democratic Change, Liberia's largest minority political party. For anyone reading Liberian publications, it's very confusing why the CDC would make any comments beyond generic stuff such as "all must get involved in Ebola fight" or comments on the Electoral Commission's proposal to postpone this year's Senate elections due to the epidemic. Of course I understand that this is much more than just Liberia, but nobody suffers from using the full name, and for anyone not familiar with anything called "CDC", it helps because they don't have to scroll up to the intro to learn what "CDC" means. Nyttend (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Throughout all this, it's frustrated me that most editors seem to be writing just for foreign audiences, using just foreign sources and in near-total ignorance of local sources and perspectives. Of course I'm not surprised; it's more of "a pity it's this way". I've basically been trying to ensure that Liberian sources are used extensively on Liberian matters (I've worked a bunch with Liberian publications in real life) and trying to ensure that the article doesn't sound awkward for Liberian readers, and I just wish that we could get someone who's familiar with sources from Sierra Leone, Guinea, and surrounding countries, so that we could rely on those sources and reword things that would sound weird in English in those countries. Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Organic farming

You deleted information about a recent high-quality meta-analysis with the edit summary that it's already discussed in the article. I don't see that it's cited in the references and at first glance I can't see where it's discussed in the article. Would you please tell me where? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

please bring to article Talk page where i will be happy to discuss. why bring it here? (real question) 14:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Because it's a simple question. You said the material was already in the article, and I couldn't find it. I was simply hoping you'd point me to it. Nothing to discuss, really. TimidGuy (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

arthritis

Hi Jytdog,

I just noticed your edit here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Arthritis&curid=1776&diff=621547014&oldid=621546607

Why did you remove the conclusions I've included in this section? There is (IMHO) no copyright issues with bringing conclusions from academic papers, when giving them exact citations (if the cite bot were to work).

Cheers, Tal Galili (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Please bring to the article Talk page - I will happily respond there. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. :) Tal Galili (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision to Regulatory Capture - ACNC

Hello, I saw your revision to Regulatory Capture and noted your comments indicating that you believed that the Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission are incompetent rather than captured. Notwithstanding that I cited a quotation from an Australian Senator, this was just used as an example to underpin the evidence in the rest of the section. The evidence I cited provides strong support to conclude that the ACNC (Set up to Regulate the Charity Sector and "maintain, protect and enhance public trust and confidence in charities through increased accountability and transparency") is captured by the Charity Sector and advances the interests of it, rather than regulates it.

I note that the definition of Regulatory Capture indicates that it is a form of government failure and would argue that failure is akin to incompetence. In this case, the regulator has failed to regulate and is captured by the Charity Sector in Australia.

I believe that the evidence i cited is stronger (or as strong) than the World Trade organisation (International Examples), which relies on the opinion of an academic and of the Food and Drug Administration and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency US examples.

I also did not include that the Australian government has now legislated to repeal the ACNC as this information is included in the ACNC wikipedia entry.

I'd be grateful for your feedback and hope we can reach some consensus.

Umpo apisdn (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

We should have this conversation on the article Talk page. Will you please copy your comment there? If so I will respond there. Jytdog (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Casein intolerance

Thanks for thoroughly checking this article. I didn't have access to Krause 2004, so I let it pass on good faith. Maybe I shouldn't have. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. Ambiguous remark! Is there something more you would like to say? Jytdog (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'll just have to be more careful checking new articles, esp. when they discuss medical topics. Those are not my expertise, and in fields that I do have expertise in, I often enough find claims that are falsified by their own references (usually some editor just misinterpreted the source). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

OH! I thought you were talking about good faith about my review! I see, you were talking about the article's initiator. reviewing new articles must be very hard and high throughput - I am grateful for the work you folks do. Jytdog (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Novozymes

Just following up re the Novozymes article; have you had a chance to look at the info I provided further to your request? Many thanks. Best, Fred at Novozymes (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

GMO controversies

Everything I posted on the talk page was accurate. I would be happy to source anything you believe erroneous reliably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.215.166 (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Almost nothing that you wrote is true. Some of it may be partly true, but almost all the very general statements you made are not supportable. See questions below. Please feel free to reply to each point directly, nested within my comments. Please note that I am asking for reliable sources as we define that in Misplaced Pages (see WP:RS) (this means that the many many anti-GMO sites that are out there are not OK to use.)

Refactoring, to focus this. Let's go one statement at a time. Starting with the first sentence..

You,IP editor, wrote: "Most products on the market undergo a testing process which including independent testing which then makes public that information good or bad"

This is not true. Testing leading to regulatory approval is generally not published and the submitted tests are kept confidential by the regulatory agency. Please provide a reliable source showing that test results submitted for regulatory approval are commonly "made public." Please also provide a reliable source stating that products submitted for regulatory approval in the US commonly undergo independent testing.. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC on replacement of Yahweh with YHWH

Ok, would you please reframe it? There were some changes from "God" to "YHWH". The point of course is that we have one pov editor who wants to change it all, and an RfC seems the best way to deal with it. Dougweller (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Took the editor to AN3 just now. Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

i totally see the problem! Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

And after discovering he ran through 50 articles at least making this change - in quotations even, or changing "the Canaanite god Yahweh" to YHWH which is a major content change (and probably pov as I doubt he thinks there was such a god, he is a firm believer the literal truth of the Torah), I started WP:ANI#New editor with multiple problems, restoring copyvio, changing Yahweh to YHWH in perhaps 50 articles, etc. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you are deleting the AdvisorShares partnership from Philippe Cousteau Jr.'s page?

I'm new to editing Misplaced Pages but I do know a lot of random triva and have a relatively good grasp of the English language. I found out about Advisorshares from the history on Philippe Cousteau Jr.'s page after I saw something on the news about Philippe Cousteau Jr. coming to Iceland. I don't have any conflict of interest with AdvisorShares. They do not operate in my country. I explained in other posts that I am not the "ETFCanadian" and no one has yet proved otherwise. However, I do kind of have an adversion to people who try to hide the truth and deceive others. While I do not want to generalize or stereotype, there are a lot of people like this in the financial sector as anyone from Iceland knows.

I don't see why the stories and links about Advisorshares need to be hidden. From my knowledge there is freedom of speech in the US and you don't have crazy libel laws like in the UK. Plus the information that has been deleted is not libeling anyone, it is just restatement of facts as they were reported by journalist, judges and others. I do not want to get to a confrontation with you. It is against my nature. I would just like to know: Why does any negative but true information about a US financial company need to be hidden from the public? If it's not true or biased can't someone just make an argument for the opposite side? If you have a good reason, I would love to hear it!Icelandicgolfer (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not delete reference to advisorshares on the Cousteau page. If you want to discuss this further, please start a discussion on the Talk page of the article. I won't discuss it further here. Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

don't humor banned users though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

oh, i wasn't aware. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC) actually this user is not blocked or banned as far as i can see. however, there is certainly a lot of apparently conflict-driven game-playing going on..... Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No, this is still a sockpuppet even if the checkuser is not matching. The behavior is identical.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

quick note

I have a fondness for the new-fangled King James Old Testament transliterations; they certainly have their place. But in many cases I prefer the old classical Greco-Latin transliterations found in the Vulgate derived translations (and the KJV New Testament and Apocrypha), not because they are more accurate (They are not!), but because they are dignified by age, and because their classical endings are cool. So I prefer Elias to Elijah, Tobias to Tobit, Core to Korah, Jesus to Yeshua (or Joshua). To say nothing of Cyclops for Kuklops, Cyrus to Kuros, Dinosaur to Deinosauros, etc. ad nauseam.

But my preference is neither here or there. It is important to have the classical transliterations, even when they have fallen out use in modern English, because they are used in the older pre-KJV translations of the Bible, as well as in current translations in the Romance languages, where the classical transliterations have never gone out of fashion. The fact that they are obscure now, makes it more necessary, not less, to include them, so that readers who stumble across these mystifying names can find them on Misplaced Pages. There is now a page called Nohestan that redirects to Nehushtan, and a pet peeve of mine is to get redirected to page and find nothing about the actual term I typed in. I will grant you that in this case, it will be clear to any educated reader than Nehushtan must be a variant of Nohestan, but not all readers are educated, and anyway, what's the harm?

Thanks. Rwflammang (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no harm! It just should be sourced. Some jerk could write "Nihashtun", right? (people really do crap like that) Also if I had my druthers name would reflect scholarly consensus of appropriate vocalization. If there are vocalizations that are of historical interest (as you like to add) there is no harm, but readers should know they are archaic & no longer used... see what I mean? i think it is cool you are bringing in older version... but they should be put in context and sourced. thx!! Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

COI

Please advise me if I have a COI in editing pages concerning agriculture and specifically those with organic and related sustainability topics. I do research in developing an alternative agricultural model. I am not paid by anyone to do this research, and it is completely funded by the sales of tomatoes and peppers from my test plots. (I have 2 test plots. 1 is ~1/10th an acre and the other is ~1 acre.) I receive absolutely no outside funding from any industry or government, neither the organic industry nor the conventional industry. The produce is not certified organic. However:

The trials using the methods I am developing use these 10 principles:

Principle 1: No till and/or minimal till with mulches used for weed control

Principle 2: Minimal external inputs

Principle 3: Living mulches between rows to maintain biodiversity

Principle 4: Companion planting

Principle 6: The ability to integrate carefully controlled modern animal husbandry (optional and not currently part of the project)

Principle 5: Capability to be mechanized for large industrial scale or low labor for smaller scale

Principle 7: As organic as possible, while maintaining flexibility to allow non-organic growers to use the methods

Principle 8: Portable and flexible enough to be used on a wide variety of crops in many areas of the world

Principle 9: Sustainable ie. beneficial to the ecology and wildlife

Principle 10: Profitable

In the past I have worked in conventional agriculture, however that was over 30 years ago. So I doubt that is a COI either.

I honestly don't feel like there is a COI either way, since while I did make a living in conventional ag years ago, that was long past, and the trials I do now are not making me a living, any income simply funds the trials. But I am inexperienced with certain details about WIKI so I defer to your judgement and will be happy to post a COI if you think it is needed. If my trials end up being successful in scaling up to full size, then there could potentially be profits that might be needing to be disclosed. That hasn't happened yet, and might not ever happen.Redddbaron (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, let me say congrats to you, and to praise your courage. Not everybody has the guts to be an entrepreneur nor to actually do the hard work it takes to create new products, so I can only bow before you with respect to that. And let me thank you too - folks like you make the world a better place. If you can get rich doing that, all the better. So ...thanks! And good luck to you (really!!) Moving to your question... it is interesting and difficult. (Thank you for asking, btw) There are three different vectors here.

• First of all, you clearly bring a lot of expertise to this topic. Expertise is super valuable here (and god knows we need more actual farmers involved in articles... I am constantly blown away by how ignorant - and how ignorant of their ignorance - many editors on food-related topics are, about farming. But there is a good side and a bad side to Expertise here. On the bad side, Experts sometimes try to add content to articles based on their own knowledge and authority, not on reliable sources, and can get impatient and exasperated with WP's requirement for sources. On the good side, experts often know the issues involved very well - and often have books and other documents (reliable sources!) at hand, that they use all the time, and can efficiently find and cite - which is mind-blowingly helpful. So - there is one double-edged sword for you to be aware of.
• Second, passion. You definitely bring a passion to the organic/sustainable topics - and that passion is a great thing in that it drives you to contribute. But that passion is also a double-edged sword, as it ~can~ also lead to WP:ADVOCACY (if you haven't read that article, please do). So you have to watch yourself there. Advocacy is related to COI, but distinct. (there is a separate notice board here for dealing with problems caused by advocacy -- it is WP:NPOVN)
• Third, the question you asked - COI. Based on what you wrote above, I don't think you have one, since it looks to me like you don't make more money if more people decide to buy organic. That is my judgement. If you want to be more confident, you could make the same posting at the noticboard for COI - WP:COIN and ask for the guidance of the community. (I did that, a year ago!)

Thanks again for asking, and good luck to you. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

back to the organic topic

You are welcome, and don't worry about advocacy. My purpose here as an editor is not advocacy, it is completely the opposite. I use wiki a lot in my research. But in doing that I come across good pages and bad pages that are useless as references. The bad pages are almost always the result of advocacy. So in those cases I have to do the hard work of researching it myself, because in writing the page with advocacy, the advocate also ruins the page as a reference work. (the purpose of any encyclopedia) Not because of what's there, but because of what isn't there. Specifically on the organic food page that you and me are both working on currently, it is advocates that ruined it, but certainly not organic advocates. ;) Redddbaron (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me ask you again, will you please explain what you see as missing from the page? Each time I have asked this you have written a general complaint. What I am looking for are examples of the kind of thing you think is missing. Bullet points... thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I am going to respond within your points. to make clear what is yours and mine, I am going to add your signature to your individual points. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

All the flaws in bullet points I don't have time to list. Sorry. But I did have time yesterday to work several hours on the page. So I can use that as an example.

• citations: I started by fixing several links almost every citation needed or dead link on the page. It was a lot and it wasn't easy. A critical thinker needs those sources so as to be able to weigh their relevance and quality. That's pretty non controversial, even though 9 out of 10 had something positive to say about organic food. I did them all though, positive or negative. Only thing left is one paragraph near the top that quite frankly I still have no idea where it came from..Redddbaron (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

has nothing to do with bias, but thank you for updating citations. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Negative bias: The entire article has a negative bias, so much so that the lead paragraph that summarises the article read like a propaganda blog, but specifically yesterday I worked on removing the negative bias from just one section: taste. Anyone reading the section on taste and no knowledge on the subject would have to assume there is no difference. It simply isn't true. There is a significant difference in taste when ANY method of production changes. For example: Put a pig in a forest in the fall and let it eat acorns hickory and chestnuts etc... and sure enough, you can taste those nuts in its meat. Some people might like that, some might not, but the taste is different. No advocate of CAFOs can deny it, all they can do is ignore it, keep it a secret, and/or try to make sure nothing like that exists in the article to create their bias. But when I added what I did, I was careful to make sure I didn't advocate either. I could have said wow this makes everything taste so much better. Most the things I added to the taste section is regarded to taste better by the vast majority of people, some so much better as to be considered artisan and/or gourmet and winning awards. Instead I wrote: "Taste is subjective and thus hard to quantify. So ultimately it is the consumer that decides if organic raised food tastes better to them or not. However, the composition and quantity of certain things in foods that affect flavor, like soluble sugars, lipids, phenolic compounds, and brix, are affected by organic production methods" in order to maintain NPOV. .Redddbaron (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I just wrote a very long response and then deleted it. I will simply ask you - what is your reliable secondary source for your claims that organic food generally tastes better, because it is organic (not because it is fresher, etc - but because it is organic) ? If you do not have any, please say that. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• nutrition: I haven't tackled this one yet, but go read the 5 sources I posted for taste and others I posted in talk. Most the things that effect taste also effect nutrition as well. I would recommend adding this in the article under nutrition, and will address this eventually, when I have time. Shouldn't be surprising. That's why tastebuds evolved, imperfect as they may be. Again though, it would need to be done in a similar non biased way..Redddbaron (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The article already deals with nutrition, using reliable secondary sources. What is your complaint? Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• pesticides: Clearly the reason pesticides is a big issue is that the public has been told many pesticides are safe, later to learn they were not. Yet little to no mention of any of those many many pesticides, only more assurances that currently pesticides are safe unlike the mistakes from the past. :D That little game could go on for years! :D The alternate POV needs mentioned. Pesticides are actually not safe. What they are is tested in risk analysis to be safer than the benefits they provide. One is weighed against the other. The false dichotomy that people will starve if no pesticides are used is in that risk analysis.Redddbaron (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about organic food, not about conventional food. Levels of pesticide residues in/on conventional food are regulated, such that the levels to which people are exposed are safe enough. Please bring a reliable, secondary source, that says that those levels are not safe enough - that regulated levels of pesticide residues in food actually are detrimental to health. If you have none, please say so. Jytdog (talk)

I really understand, that to you - organic food is "better" - that it tastes better and is more "healthy". However, as far as I know. there are no reliable secondary sources that support your POV. This is what makes your complaints, and your efforts to push more positive content about organic food into the article, simply WP:ADVOCACY in Misplaced Pages. Out there in the world, you are free to say and think whatever you want. IN HERE - in Misplaced Pages - you MUST have reliable sources to support your claims. And on a topic that is controversial like this, there is no way anything but the best secondary sources are going to be allowed in. (btw there are plenty of primary sources that make claims that organic food is terrible in various ways -- those will not come in either). But can you really not see how you are just POV-pushing? If there were reliable secondary sources that supported your claims, we would already be using them in the article. I have written to you so, so many times about the need for sources for your claims, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. How can I help you understand this? (real question!) Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that without secondary sources it can't be added, so when the changes are made I add sources. I added 5 on taste. Could have added more but went with 1 good milk dairy source, one egg source, 2 meat sources (1 feeding study and 1 growth hormone study) and one good fruit veggie source. Those sources are just tip of the iceberg though. When I tackle nutrition NPOV problem, I have literally 100's available for me to use. (the USC website I used for 1 or 2 taste references has MANY more on nutrition) I'll try and systematically categorise and just use the best though, same as I did for taste.Redddbaron (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I am bummed that you didn't respond above. On taste, the only source that survived actually says that consumers like grass-fed beef less. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I responded on the organic food talk page with links to lists of over ~100 citations, all paywalls removed by CSU. A pretty fair % discuss taste flavor and/or carcass quality. But also discussed are health benefits, fat profiles, risk assessments, independent reviews etc... Almost all of them with positive conclusions. I didn't feel I needed to post in both places. I suppose you could remove or refuse to use all ~100 citations in order to assure the page retains its negative bias, but assuming you actually do wish to improve the wiki page (and I do assume that). There should be more than enough citations to make that page the best referenced page in all of the agricultural project pages. Especially since many other agricultural universities have similar lists but on different crops/foods and the effects organic production methods have on them. For example: there are hundreds of rice studies listed at Cornell University website (SRI being the organic method discussed). And there are hundreds of fruit studies found at Washington State University.Redddbaron (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Redddbaron We need reliable SECONDARY sources. Not primary sources. I just realized that you don't understand this distinction. In science, a "primary source" is the one where some scientist publishes the results of some experiments he or she has done. In science, a secondary source is a review article. I have been saying over and over that we need reliable secondary sources, and you have not understood what I was saying. Jytdog (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

also, we use the most current reviews that are available, that take into account all the work that has been done to date. You will notice that the reviews we cite (with the exception of the meat one that you added yesterday and I retained) are all from the last year or two. Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Mishnah or Midrash

I noticed your edit here. I think the previous version, saying Midrash, is also correct. The Midrash is also part of the Oral tradition. And if you meant to say that this text is referring specifically to halakhic traditions, which in itself I wouldn't agree with, then there are halakhic midrashim as well. In addition, the Mishnah is part of the Talmud, so after your change "Mishnah and Talmud" is a little overdoing things. In short, unless you have an additional argument, I'd like to restore Midrash and Talmud. Debresser (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

point well taken, i self-reverted. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Debresser (talk)

Organic food

Nice work on Organic food. Well done. bobrayner (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

thank you... ongoing! Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Brofiscin Quarry, Groes Faen

I appreciate the work you are doing, but it is not correct to say that it was "one of the most contaminated..... until its remediation". It almost certainly still is one of the most contaminated sites , but now its got a concrete cap on it. The cap may well limit the surface drainage issues but the contaminants remain inside the site and available to the wider world when the concrete degrades or when the leachate finds its way out through the ground-water. Regards  Velella    11:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

please discuss on the article Talk page. future readers should have a record of the discussion and if it is here, it is not part of the article's record. Jytdog (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem. I prefer to raise minor issues with the current editor first in case it is an oversight or unintentional but am happy to deal with in other ways.  Velella    12:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

it is a simple discussion on talk. Jytdog (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated...

on the issues raised at User_talk:2over0#Bit_of_a_tiff_about_a_source. This isn't meant as, or to be construed as, canvassing because it's about a simple matter of fact, which I'm asking you about because you're scientifically literate and objective. I've asked a couple other clueful users, who I trust to be objective, to comment as well. Thanks! regards, Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 17:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your asking, but I have decided that those articles are too toxic to get involved with - there is no room for a reasonable middle. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Know the feeling ... Alexbrn 17:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)