Misplaced Pages

Misplaced Pages articles concerning organizations living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Misplaced Pages is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Misplaced Pages to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Misplaced Pages itself.

Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with an organization another individual – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is affiliated with an avowed rival of that organization individual, should not edit that organization's article person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of an article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all.

thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Slimvirgin Would you support the change of this text as a step in the right direction? If Jytdog made the changes and you supported it then I think that would help to match current written policy with the actual practices which are probably enacted on Misplaced Pages.

I do not follow the omission of "political, social, literary, scholarly", unless it is just to make the statement more concise. It seems to me that those kinds of disputes could apply with organizations as well as BLPs.

Treating organizations with BLP policy seems to me to be what the Misplaced Pages community does anyway, and I like the idea of combining policies so that the basic idea applies in all comparable situations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

removed the strike. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I can't tell what the text says; some of the striking seems to leave part of it dangling. Can you post it without the striking, i.e. as you're proposing it? Sarah (SV) 18:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

clean version below. just a draft of course. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Using Misplaced Pages to continue disputes

Misplaced Pages articles concerning organizations may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Misplaced Pages is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Misplaced Pages to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to Misplaced Pages itself.

Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with an organization – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is affiliated with an avowed rival of that organization, should not edit that organization's article or other material about that organization, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of an article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all.

there you go. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Parts of it won't work because copied from the BLP policy. So "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with an organization – whether on- or off-wiki ..." The passage would mean that a company need only arrive and declare a dispute to force editors to stop editing its article.

I could perhaps support something like: "Misplaced Pages is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Therefore, an editor who is involved in a dispute with an organization off-wiki should not edit material about that organization, given the conflict of interest."

But we would have to build in something to make clear that it's off-wiki only, to stop the scenario above. And even then I'm not sure. Sarah (SV) 02:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

how is this?

Using Misplaced Pages to continue disputes

Misplaced Pages articles concerning organizations may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Misplaced Pages is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. An editor who is involved in a significant off-wiki controversy or dispute with an organization, or who is affiliated with an avowed rival of that organization, should not edit that organization's article or other material about that organization, given the potential conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) June 9 2015

This is fine with me if it can actually be incorporated somewhere. This strikes me as unlikely to pass because of "other material about that organization" seems like an injunction against editing the talk page, and I thought that was a safe space for people with a COI to edit. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Using Misplaced Pages to continue disputes

Misplaced Pages articles concerning organizations may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Misplaced Pages is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. An editor who is involved in a significant off-wiki controversy or dispute with an organization, or who is affiliated with an avowed rival of that organization, should not edit that organization's article or other articles about that organization, given the potential conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) June 9 2015

revised to address Bluerasberry's comment above - yes editors with a COI can discuss on Talk pages! SlimVirgin your thoughts?Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

here is another example of an editor whom I would say has a COI with respect to perceived harm from an organization. Right? Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding No progress made in the discussion.. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Genetically modified food#WHO source".The discussion is about the topic WHO citation. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Bellarmine University

You deleted information I added to the Academic section because of my paid editor status. May I ask what was wrong with it? Dbilodeau (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe you that read COI and said that you understand it and will abide by it, right? If that is so, can you please tell me why you are editing the article directly? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

So you want me to get my desired changes peer reviewed first? Dbilodeau (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

that is what WP:COI says you should do. it is not a matter of what i want or what you want. good citizen, right? Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Blocked User:Nuklear

I note that you have made several reversions of late from IP address 89.240.133.249 claiming that they are socks of the blocked user Nuklear. Whilst there is obviously no problem with reverting any contribution from a sock of blocked user (as in WP:BE), I am at a loss to understand why you believe that the IP address is in reality Nuklear. There is no history in the two articles of Nuklear making similar edits. I B Wright (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Nuklear had definitely edited both articles - see history of Triamterene (Deass is one of Nuklear's socks, as is 80.42.36.238); see Isocarboxazid history were Nuklear had edited under several IPs previously. 89.240.133.249 edited Triamterene and edited Isocarboxazid adding synthesis just like Nuklear. Jytdog (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, but I can find no evidence that User:Nuklear or User:Deass have edited any of the articles that you have named above in at least the last five years. Similarly, of the articles that Nuklear and Deass have edited, there is no evidence that they have been similarly edited by any other editor. Further, I have run the editor interaction utility on Nuklear and Deass and there is no interaction at all (i.e. they have never edited the same article). Thus: even if Nuklear and Deass were the same person, there is no sockpuppetry. Therefore, it seems to me that there is no plausible evidence that there is any sockpuppetry going on. I note that a few SPI cases have been raised but neither user has a block for sockpuppetry as a result, which I am not surprised as the cases against them were pretty thin. Even if a few IP editors are making similar edits to different articles that either Nuklear or Deass have made in the past, that does not prove sockpuppetry (on the part of Nuklear or Deass). It only proves that someone else agrees with them or is engaging in 'copy cat' editing. I do believe that there is a case that the IP address editors are probably the same person, but that is a whole different discussion. Your reversion under WP:BE is therefore inappropriate.

You should note that where one editor edits under multiple accounts, but does not edit the same articles with both accounts (or does not make the same edits to the same article), then that does not constitute a prohibited use of multiple accounts. I B Wright (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Please look at the User:Deass page - he is blocked as a confirmed sock of Nuklear. Nuklear and his socks have a very clear pattern of editing - always drug/chemical articles, always synthesis and adding similar chemicals to the "see also" section. Sorry but nothing you are writing is making sense. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I have had a look at User:Deass's user page. I have also had a look at the SPI case linked from that user page. Although the SPI case contains allegations and evidence that they may be the same user, there is no conclusion that says that they are actually socking. Also the interaction utility clearly shows that they have never edited the same articles (here). As I stated: neither editor has any block for sockpuppetry. The SPI case and the interaction utility clearly shows that whoever added those confirmed sock tags to Deass's and Nuklear's user pages had absolutely no right to do so as there is no evidence of socking or declaration of such in an SPI.

To underline the point that two accounts editing in a similar manner may be the same person but not be guilty of sockpuppetry, there is a more recent case where an IP editor made three reverts to an article. The article was then semi-protected. On needing to continue reverting to his version he switched to using a named account to continue the edit war. An SPI case was raised (and I seriously believed (and still do) that that did constitute socking). The case was rejected because although the edits were clearly the same person, they were not using both IDs at the same time. They used one and then switched to the other. I can't find it at the moment but will provide the link if I do.

As far as the IP addresses refered to above being the same user, they probably are but they are not using different IP addresses at the same time. They may well be a dynamic IP address over which the user has no control. There is therefore no evidence of sockpuppetry by anybody anywhere. I B Wright (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Found it! It's here. Coincidentally, it turns out that it was yourself who made the AN3 complaint that got the article semi-protected in the first place. I B Wright (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I also note that many of the edits that you are reverting are potentially good edits to articles such as this one. WP:BE is not a catch all that gives the right to revert any and every edit from a blocked user. Indeed, WP:BE states, "obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism can be allowed to stand". It is generally only the continuance of disruptive edits where the sockmaster was using the sockpuppet to support that should be reverted (though policy does allow you to err on the side of reversion if the case is not clear. I B Wright (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want to re-open any of the closed and actioned SPI cases, please do so at SPI (or under whatever the procedure is for appealing a sock block). This is not the place to do that. If you want to re-instate any of the reverts I made, please feel free. Please also note that if you make a habit of it, you will be taking on their behavior and may become subject to a block yourself, for the same reason they were blocked. Jytdog (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

btw I don't know where the diff is, but Nuklear/Deass/one-or-more-of-his-IPs mocked the community saying that he knew how to jump IP addresses and would continue to do that intentionally. I have no idea what is driving your interest but you are making pretty strong conclusions without being aware of all the facts here. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Resorting to threats is as good as conceeding the argument. I B Wright (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Not threatening, just describing reality. You own edits that you restore. Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You appear to have a strange view of reality. If I chose to reinstate any of the edits that introduced good material into the subject articles, I am at a loss to see what policy you would attempt to organise your threatened block under. As for my interest: I perceive, that for whatever reason, you appear to be pursuing a vendetta against this particular user by claiming sockpuppetry where there is no evidence whatsoever - and I regard that as unacceptable behaviour. I B Wright (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not pursuing a vendetta. Nuklear was blocked for consistently violating copyright, UNDUE, and sourcing guidelines. If you start consistently reverting me (which you are entitled to do) you will reinstate the sock's edits, which continue his violations. You will then own those violations. What is driving your interest in this? Please do answer. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, don't follow me around. Mind your own business! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.65.196 (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You lost your editing privileges. If you want to get them back, you can appeal your block. Until then, please stop editing Misplaced Pages. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please could you mind your own business and i'll do likewise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.130.70 (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You lost your editing privleges. If you want to get them back, you can appeal your block. This is a real community - you chose to ignore what people were telling you about what you were doing wrong. So you were blocked. You have to take that seriously. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

thank you, yobol. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

GM review

I couldn't figure out how to work this article into genetically modified food controversies, so I am putting it here for your consideration in case you want to add it. Everymorning talk 23:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

and then there is stuff like this that says that whole food animal studies are not even ethical to do, as they add no value. The literature on this is exceedingly messy and politicized. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Senpion

I'm assuming, due to the lack of response from the user, that my initial assumption (which you echoed) was correct, and being called out on it caused the user to bail out on WP entirely. The edit history showed that those edits were the focus, and I don't buy the claims that were made subsequently. However, as no action occurred, what's the next step in case this happens again (though I doubt it, as I think the underlying tech has no traction)? MSJapan (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Just ping me, if you like, and i'll pick up the conversation where it left off. Sorry again that we dropped the ball at COIN when you brought it in the first place. Jytdog (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarification

OK I want to understand where you are coming from here (and I appreciate your fast response to the original proposals). Harold asks to change something so I provide evidence to say why not? I'm happy just to leave stuff if he makes no citations. But I confined myself to facts there with no commentary. I made no comment on his motivations but restricted myself to facts. He is also using the page to make statements based on his opinion, so if you are going to strike my response you should really strike his original statement as well :-) I did my best on his german equivalent to go and find a source for him to help so I think you are being a little harsh with your edit summary there ----Snowded 06:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Secondly do you think it is legitimate to use social media to get people to contribute to the page? A tweet from Harold this morning asked for contributions. He used the #Cynefin hashtag so it will go to people outside his circle. However my policy has been not to use social media in an wikipedia edit conflict. Not sure if there is a policy here or not. ----Snowded 06:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

yes, confine yourself to facts that have sources. you, in particularly, need to rigorous. no it is not valid to summon people to WP pages. thanks for letting me know. Jytdog (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Doing my best here :-) I have a minor concern that Harold's accusation on Cynthia's involvement (a major part of his off wiki campaign) is being allowed to stand without a response. I'll live with it but it is a concern. Otherwise I'm going to hold off any edit requests for several weeks until things calm down. I had not realised how fast you would be on the monitoring or I might just have left it anyway ----Snowded 07:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

done. Jytdog (talk) 07:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

With you, appreciated ----Snowded 07:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

we'll see. what i want to see is behavior aimed toward improving Misplaced Pages. Not toward furthering your personal interests or toward pursuing your dispute with Harold. Rigor. We'll see. Jytdog (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as possible I ignore him and I don't respond off wiki if he tries. On wiki it's about reputation so I have responded to changes he has attempted to make, The COI policy as it is being implemented seems to handle the sort of hits that both Cynefin and Dave Snowden article have being subject too over the years. Hopefully I can spend my time monitoring the various Philosophy and Political sites in which I am active. I've got some ideas on COI but I'll leave that for a week or so ----Snowded 07:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gents. Yes I used twitter to get more people involved as I think that would help. More diversity = more experience. I did so because I saw a tweet yesterday from @industrylapdog https://twitter.com/IndustryLapdog/status/607707402151043072. It that is not done, I'm sorry. If its OK, please tell me.

Re Campaign, Where do I accuse anyone? Where am I campaigning?Hvgard (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

yes some person is picking one edit i make every day and tweeting it under the handle "industry lapdog". whatever. Hvgard do not canvass' and please read the warning on your userpage about that. Jytdog (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

and Hvgard since you have acknowledged that are tweeting about this, i looked, and you have been tweeting about your dispute with dave for a while now, well before today. It appears to be a straight up lie, to say that you were inspired to tweet about this by the "industrylapdog" tweet. You just lost a lot of good will with me.

The tweeting is completely out of bounds. Please strike your claim to have tweeted about this only because of the industrylapdog tweet, and tell me that you will stop tweeting about this. I will also tell you that, I will be watching your twitter feed now, and the next time you tweet about this dispute in Misplaced Pages, I will seek a topic ban. You need to restrain yourself. Jytdog (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I was just tweeting on was happening here, getting people aware of the edits so that other start to help too. I can't remember I tweeted about wikipedia before. Anyway I wont tweet again about wikipedia Cynefin edits if that considered out of bounds. Hvgard (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That is not a good response with regard to what appears to me to be a lie. Whatever. But yes it is out of bounds to tweet about your disputes. I told you it is and provided you the link to the guideline. There is no "if". Don't do it going forward. Jytdog (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I still don't get it. What did I lie about? Please point me to where and what. Ofcourse I have ve exchanges on twitter and other social media with many people I agree with or partly or not on many subjects including this one. To my best knowledge the tweet I sent yesterday was the first I sent about Cynefin wikipedia edits ever. I did it in good faith. Now know better, it won't happen again.Hvgard (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Your post above says: " I did so because I saw a tweet yesterday from @industrylapdog..." You were already tweeting about the content dispute before yesterday. June 2 Jytdog (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. OK. So two. Understood. Hvgard (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't like your imperious behavior

This is in response to your post about removing my comment, which you posted on my talk page. Yeah i know you and i know what you did, Jytdog and i didn't like it one bit. My comment was to the point that you act imperiously and do whatever the hell you want despite the concerns and thoughts of others, and then you announce "this is the way!" and expect everyone to fall in line, so i called you "Your Highness" as an expressive form of sarcasm to tell you what i thought about your action, and then you deleted that very comment and showed even more that you're willing to act imperiously here and think you can control what the hell others are saying from their selves. It's classic behaviour from you, and i have a long history with you. And why were you even at that page -- following my contributions? Or did you have that page on your watchlist. Don't answer that because i do not trust you at all and would not trust your answer that you weren't following me. Our trust is completely broken, Jytdog, and i believe you're a bad and disruptive editor. I have work to do in the real world today and will not be replying here so this is the last from me for a while, but i want the world to know that i think you're a disruptive editor here in Misplaced Pages, and you've made my experience here contributing to this encyclopedia a whole lot worse than it could have been. No thanks for hounding me and accusing me of every paper cut charge under the sun. SageRad (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Consistenly destroying my edits and contributions and undoing them with threatening reason comments like "you are close to 3RR now!" ... oooh... you know, your behavior is very very very bad for a Misplaced Pages community member, and i bet there are a few dozen other people who wpould attest to very very very bad interactions with you, in which you use strawman argumentation, shifting goalposts, lawyerly language and techniques, annoyance tactics, and simply marching ahead and making edits that the group doesn't seem to want, and otherwise generally disruptive and non-cooperative behavior, anti-social behaviors that makes the whole process go a lot worse and complicates discussions that would otherwise be rather simple, and generally not seeming to be WP:HERE for real, as you've so often thrown that accusation at me, and WP:HOUND-ing people too, including me, and doing a whole lot of generally bad things. I'm gonna be gone from here for a while, but i'm leaving this extremely strong statement of my dislike for your behavior, and my general disgust at your imperiousness and obstructionism and obfuscationism. Yes, i am calling this out. I'm calling out your general bad behaviors that all seem to add up to a sort of agenda, as well, because you're ALWAYS lawyering for the side that would be the chosen agenda of the industry if they had someone working for them here, a single-direction force of non-cooperation here in Misplaced Pages..... why? Who are you? SageRad (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

He's just an editor, like you, except perhaps not. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 12:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry you have had such a hard time learning the policies and guidelines here, SageRad. I've done my best to help you. Jytdog (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with SageRad. Because you didn't like my previous post, he decided to track back through my contributions and revert five other major edits which took me hours to put together. Just because my edits are on articles of faith doesn't mean that the posts are inappropriate. The material is in character with the existing text of the articles, and most if not all the material was sourced to peer-reviewed published books. Those articles are stub articles that need additional information. Please stop attacking my posts. I am going to revert them all back except the most recent one, and hopefully you will leave them alone.IncreaseTheHeat (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you each are having similar struggles coming to understand how WP works. Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

In case you missed it

This. The malformed template ref means their ping wouldn't have worked. Alexbrn (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

thx. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jytdog and User:Alexbrn reported by User:Anmccaff (Result: ). You can respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the notice. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Your (rather silly) intervention on the'Peter Hitchens' entry

I replied on the Talk page (of the 'Peter Hitchens' entry) to your attempt to make a controversy about the fact that I sometimes(quite openly and under my own name ) make minor factual adjustments to the Misplaced Pages entry about me, adjustments which I am in a unique position to make. Anybody's welcome to challenge them if they know better than I such things as my late father's naval rank and position.

I am the only person who has responded to your intervention. Everyone else seems uninterested and unhorrified by my behaviour, as is only reasonable. Your attempt to suggest that there is something naughty going on has met with no other response of any kind. Do you think you might therefore take steps to remove the misleading label on the entry which suggests(quite wrongly() that I have been making illegitimate and underhand alterations? If you won't, can you please tell me to whom I can appeal, and how? My computer skills are limited. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

the work of cleaning up after conflicted editors is tedious - those tags sometimes remain a long time. you will notice that no one immediately rose up to take it off, which is what folks do when find they tag inapt or silly. Jytdog (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Interventional radiology

Hi - first time user - let's see if I got this right. You pulled my additions to Interventional Radiology - I think based on a lack of citation which I have since added. I have several more articles to write but want to get my first Misplaced Pages contribution correct. I think the content is valuable and directly relates to the history already posted. Regards, Chuckd105 (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)chuckd105

we should discuss on the article Talk page, not here. I will open the discussion there. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You responded to me on my user talk page and asked me to reply. I did add more information, but not sure how to "reply". How will you know that I answered/ Chuckd105 (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)chuckd105

I am "watching" your page so I saw your reply. Have just been busy - I will reply there later today. Thanks for following up! Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly enough

It would appear I am now a target of a particular editor because of the comments I made at AN regarding her here and at AN/I before that . The shit-stirring by her can be seen here . A kind, gentle, Wiki-love bestowing grandmother who has been totally misunderstood and just wants Wiki-peace... Sure. Whatever. I thought you and Flyer22 would both be interested in the latest development of this continuing saga. Ugh. it shows, in my opinion, that her behavior hasn't changed, it's just been transferred to someone else. I have left the following at her talk page. Hopefully, it will quell any further attempts on her part to poison the well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

In my view that post on the user's Talk page basically denies that she did anything wrong and may run against whatever agreement she established with KevinGorman. I am not an admin. I suggest you bring that to Kevin's Talk page. If he is not around, I recommend you post to AN. Sorry about that.Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Seeking advice from you

Hi, the talk comment below was just reverted by Snowded. Can you point out where I should have made this suggestion? My talk page, the Cynefin talk page, your talk page, Snowded talk page, elsewhere? Please help me out. Thanks:

There are existing and past relationships between all involved and mentioned here and others that historically contributed. That is why its important to find independent sources, which might be difficult. One way forward seems to me to focus - in the interest of readers - on facts about the model independent on "who contributed what Hvgard (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Editors have a right to delete entire comments from their own talk pages, see WP:OWNTALK. While I cannot see that he has banned you from his own Talk page (which editors also have the right to do) I suggest you avoid posting there. Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Thank you, Robert. Jytdog (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Bowman v Monsanto

Jytdog, what I was trying to do, first, was replace the pejorative term "loophole" with a more neutral way of putting it that did not suggest wrongdoing or bad intent by Bowman, as the prior writer did. Second, I think it is necessary to tell readers that crop soybeans are the same as seed, so that you can use the crop beans as seed to grow new crops. Otherwise it is unclear what is going on.

Instead of just reverting, why don't you come up with a way to do these things that you would find OK?

I think that is an improper revert. Maybe my way of saying this (what's in the first para. above) is not best, but what would you suggest? I would welcome a helpful edit.

PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You are making it read like an essay intead of an encyclopedia article. Please don't use footnotes with asides, and please don't include WP:OR like "Thus far, there has been relatively little scholarly commentary on the case in law journals". Also we don't use honorifics like "Professor Gholsh". Just because he happened to write a blog (even if it was in patently-o) doesn't mean he is quotable. Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, you edited out the subheads. You therefore have the three court decisions as part of the "Background." Court decisions do not belong in the Background section.

You are not editing carefully. Some of your edits are improvements. But some make the article worse (like what I mention above in the first three sentences). You shouldn't revert just for the sake of reverting. That appears to be what you did here. For example, why did you delete the sentence following the statement that he had a contract--that the infringing seed plantings were not the ones under the3 contract, so it wasn't a breach of contract that he did it. Otherwise, the preceding sentence is misleading. It suggests that Bowman "replanted" in violation of his contract with Monsanto--untrue!

Maybe we could discuss in detail what you want to revert and why. Then we could come up with an improved article, with fewer of the mistakes now in it.

PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

you mean this dif perhaps, where I reverted a whole boatload of OR that you added? Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

please continue this at the article talk page so others who care can join in. thx. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. But before I switch Talk pages, that is *NOT* OR. I can provide cites. PraeceptorIP (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)