Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Switzerland was originally included in wikipedia "dog meat" but someone removed it after the Yulin festival was a hot topic on the news because the western people were shame that someone included an european country in dog eating country list! stop being a hypocrite west! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilin19892706 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, I disagree with their answers over there, I routinely dump those silly "animal at location Foo" captions, totally unnecessary most of the time. Montanabw^(talk) 06:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so this is not a pet hate of just mine. Thanks for the thought - I perhaps need to re-think my re-think!__DrChrissy (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree also with the initial response, and often feel cross about these animal captions. Why lose the focus in articles by adding flurries of irrelevant information. Look at how silly the captions get here for a globally endemic animal! It can be as useful as including the colour and thread size of the photographer's socks. Perhaps a discussion could be opened at WikiProject Tree of Life so the matter can be aired and a measure of consensus established on a more targeted forum. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I might have raised quite an issue here - the Mussel example is amazing! I also wonder if some of these captions of images from zoos, wildlife parks, etc, may actually be sneaky advertising.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just came up with a good reason to remove them! I'd say that "animal in location foo" captions are useful where it matters if we demonstrate an animal's presence in its native (or introduced0 habitat, but otherwise, no. Montanabw^(talk) 03:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the reason for the location being stated must be made clear in the caption, e.g. Animal x in location "foo" with the substantially more pale pelage/where it was introduced in XXXX/where wild individuals interact closely with humans/etc __DrChrissy (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be one reason. To just list for random reasons is cruft and can go. I suspect the early examples were simply people copying over data that should remain with the image file page only. Montanabw^(talk) 04:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested in this discussion/issue, you might like to take a peek at Talk:Coyote__DrChrissy (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened the discussion up wider at [1]__DrChrissy (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrChrissy. Your recent addition on human cases of bovine TB is totally valid and useful - but it does seem to me to be a copy and paste of the source. Could you re-phrase it before it gets picked up by copy violation bots/searches? See WP:COPYPASTE and Examples of what is allowed and not allowed for more info. If you want to reply or have any questions you can reply here or on my talk page - whichever you prefer. Robevans123 (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm...are you accusing me of plagiarism on my own talk page?__DrChrissy (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited Meerkat with a major improvement. I started editing it before you, and copied my revision before saving, then I got an edit conflict. So I pasted my revision, but I tried to reinstate your changes too. I was thinking about submitting it for GA, what do you think? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for re-instating my edits - those edit conflicts can be a real pain. I think that considering Meerkats have been the subject of so much research, the Meerkat article probably needs more detail in quite a few places. I have always got frustrated in trying to get articles to GA status because it seems some editor with a random, non-biological interest wades in and expects a huge number of ridiculous hoops to be jumped through. By all means, recommend it, and I will support you where I can, but this can be a soul-destroying experience!__DrChrissy (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I hit a road block, I can't find anything for a "Taxonomy" or "Classification" section. I could find stuff on taxonomy for Caracal and Malagasy civet (even though not much), but meerkat? Nope. I know what you mean, if I put it up for GA now, I don't think "I couldn't find anything" would be an acceptable way to get it passed without a taxonomy section. I might look a bit more, though. If I'm unsuccessful, at least I can say I got the ugly refimprove tag removed! --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

YUCK!!!!!!  ;-)

• Really wish you would have discussed this here with me. You are reawakening a pot that has been stirred so many times. Montanabw^(talk) 06:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually an issue that is much bigger than just the mustang article. Using uppercase for breeds seems to be a general use on WP, however, this looks absurd when it is now agreed that the species is lowercase. So, we now have Felis silvestris catus and "Colourpoint Shorthair" which to me suggests the breed is more important than the species. I actually do not care all that much which it is, but if breeds are to be an exception to capitalisation conventions in W -, the MOS should tell editors this. All I am arguing for is adherance to the MOS, or change it! Much of the Discussion on Mustang is being sidetracked on whether the mustang is a breed or not (you have stated yourself it is not a species or sub-species). This is irrelevant to my arguement because the instructions given in MOS apply to any group of animal which does not (currently) exempt breeds.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the capitalization of breeds issue is a never-ending saga, I know. Reasonable minds can differ. My own view is that God (or nature) made species, humans make breeds, that's the difference, in a nutshell. But even with species names and common names, I don't know if you followed "BIRDCON" at all, but that one ran off a number of very knowledgeable editors over what was basically a capitalization fight. Let's just keep the AGF going here, though, OK? And feel free to ASK me or WP Equine about why the Mustang article is the way it is - the tamed Mustang is still a Mustang, it is an example of what a Mustang looks like once it is taken off the range and re-domestciated. They make lovely horses to own if you handle them right, and what to do with the excess population is a huge issue out here in the west. Many people are trying to save these animals. See this, for example. Montanabw^(talk) 10:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Aye-aye may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[File:Ayeaye, Daubentonia madagascariensis, Joseph Wolf.jpg|thumb|upright|An aye-aye foraging, c.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wallaby may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• head and body length is 45 to 105 cm and the tail is 33 to 75 cm long. The six named species of [[Rock-wallaby|rock-wallabies (g. ''Petrogale'') live among rocks, usually near water; two species

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at this guideline before incorporating quoted text into the article again. Changing a few words in the quote will not absolve Wikipedia from a charge of plagiarism, even with the citation. It needs to be made absolutely clear that the material belongs to someone else. Thanks. --VeryCrocker (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been writing and publishing scientific articles in top level journals (including Nature) for over 25 years. I am therefore, profesionally, well aware of what consitutes plagiarism. The important words in the WP guideline are correctly "...without providing adequate credit". If you look at the text as I left it, there was an in-line citation to the source. Yes, I closely paraphrased it and this meant it was no longer a quote, however, I directed the reader to the original source of the information and made no attempt whatsoever to claim that the wording was mine.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have had some collaborative and congenial discussion in the past, why are you now going through all these horse articles and messing them up? I've been a part of nearly 40 GA and over 15 FA class articles and I do know what I'm doing here. These terms are not "jargon" they are technical language and MOS on captions does not mandate that they be boring. I agreed with you on the location issue, I wish you'd discuss things before you go mucking around with other issues. Montanabw^(talk) 18:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are a highly proficient, skilled and respected editor, however, we all have our imperfections. I am not "mucking about" with these articles, I am trying to improve them by making them more accessible to non-horsey, and perhaps, non-US citizens. I have asked for clarification where even as an experienced biologist I might not understand the term, or the term is, in my opinion, too technical. I have asked for clarification when people/characters are named who are likely unknown outside the US or the horse-world. I am asking for clarification when something is stated e.g. "early part of the century" when we don't know which century or we should be able to be more specific. I am asking for clarification with an SI unit of measurement where only hands are given. I am deleting the name of the animal from the lead image caption because this is already stated above as the image title - why repeat this! I am replacing "mare" in the lead caption with "female (mare)" because, believe it or not, there might be people out there who do not know what a mare is. Please see Lion, Deer and Moose. The reason I have made these changes is because they appear across several horse-based articles.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just open discussion at the talk pages then? But Female (mare) looks stupid and would be trashed as a caption at FAC. Also the breed articles are not species articles. (And for what it's worth, horse is a GA.) I'd be OK if you wanted to link mare and stallion, but we have literally dozens of GA and FA-class horse articles where the technical language is used, sometimes with links to articles and sometimes with links to Glossary of equestrian terms. This issue was discussed, and the "a stallion is a boy horse" think in every single article has gone the way of the dodo. (No I can't find the diff, I have 65K edits over 8 years...I think it was some of Ealdgyth's early Quarter Horse FACs) Montanabw^(talk) 19:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And to be honest, it would not take you much more time to glance at the article and just say "20th century" or whatever as to tag-bomb. If it really IS that vague - and not just missed in a quick read - then post a friendly message at talk saying, "hey, you forgot to say WHICH century at part X of the article, want to fix it?" Often ^{[clarification needed]} is totally meaningless. We really need content worker bees here more than fussy schoolarms "grading" older articles that have taken the back seat to more pressing work. Montanabw^(talk) 19:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that someone with your experience might think "Female (mare)" might look 'stupid', but there was a time when even you did not know what a mare is. Imagine if you are a very young reader, a non-native English reader, or perhaps an engineer reading their first ever biological article..."Female (mare)" is informative and precise. Simply putting a technical term which is not even linked, is potentially inaccessible. I doubt very much it would be trashed at an FAC. I'm not sure why you mention breed and species? Whenever I tag something with ^{[clarification needed]} I leave an edit summary stating what I believe needs clarification. Sorry you feel I am a "fussy schoolalarm". I'm not entirely sure what that is, but my only intention is to improve articles.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why I added the wikilink, which is a good idea, actually. Frankly, as a person who knows animals better than engineering, and article like Rankine cycle isn't particularly helpful to me without a lot of wikilinks, but I wouldn't ask the editors to "dumb it down" for me either. As for the other stuff, where you feel the need in insert multiple tags, that is a good sign it's better to just fix it or discuss the overall problem. See Wikipedia:Tag bombing. (Not sure what you mean by "I'm not sure why you mention breed and species" ?) Montanabw^(talk) 00:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Tag bombing article describes this as "...unjustified addition of numerous tags...". You do not state which article you are accusing me of doing this to. I will assume it is the Spanish mustang. I added 4 tags with edit summaries explaining the concerns. Is 4 numerous? A moot point. Three of the four tags have led to editors clarifying this information, so I would suggest the tags were justified and therefore I will reject your accusation of Tag bombing on this article.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was Mustang and anywhere else you added more than one or two tags. Yes, I fixed it, but that was to avoid a 3RR complaint, frankly, you are taking my time away from other, more valuable CONTENT CREATION projects that I simply cannot focus on while I am trying to preserve the articles that exist from careless edits by drive-by editors who don't know what they are doing. Can you please go back to doing the things you did well, which was your work on animal health issues? We have so much that needs to be done there, and it's actual lasting content. Montanabw^(talk) 00:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking this far to personally. When I add tags, I am not expecting a single editor to attend to these. There are many editors involved in the horse pages - why do you think I am expecting only you to attend to these. In addition, before I leave tags, I consider editing the article myself, if I have the correct expertise. However, in the past (and present), my edits on horse related pages are reverted or questioned for reasons known only to some exclusive members of the horse world. And this includes edits contrary to the WP:MOS as now exists on the mustang Talk page.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is my view that it is you who have made it a personal issue when in defiance of WP:BRD you get all upset because you were reverted, especially when you were reverted on two GA-clas articles (Morgan and Sorraia) and start all kinds of drama with RMs and posts on random drama boards instead of simply discussing the issue at the article talk page. How many GA and FA class articles have YOU contributed to? How many have you nursed through the review process? Seriously. Until you understand what the highest standards are, don't lecture me. I welcome legitimate input on apparent errors, I gladly welcome typo fixing because my eyesight is poor and I have a lot of them, and I'm always open to discussion at talk on content if the argument is legitimate. Montanabw^(talk) 00:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have already requested on the mustang Talk page that you do not bring these personal attacks to my Talk page. You have ignored this. I asked that you raise an ANI so that independent persons can look at your personal attacks on me and either support or refute these. Please do this.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've apparently not spent much time at ANI. If I go to ANI, I will be accusing you of misbehavior and recommending a disciplinary action. I have no interest in doing this, I just want you to quit messing up articles with GA status, and I have explained at all of them why you should not do what you wanted to do. I have made NO personal attacks on you, I've only explained - over and over - what you are doing wrong with your article edits. If you don't want to listen, then I don't have much more to say. I have been editing wikipedia for eight years with a 100% clean record, having never been blocked. You certainly can go over there and say how evil I am, but read WP:BOOMERANG first. I have been a major contributor to 17 featured articles, 12 of which have been TFA. I have been a major contributor to over 40 good articles. In fact, I was also a minor contributor to Rainbow trout, which is TFA today and I don't even claim "major" contributions to that one, though I spend hours fixing up some small bits there. So I happen to know what I'm talking about, and if you really want to go to ANI over "Female (mare)" or fixed size image parameters, ask what you want: If it's my head on a plate, you will lose. If it's a ruling that you are right and I am wrong, you will lose. Montanabw^(talk) 03:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note here because it impacts many articles: Whenever you have a forced size in an article (like 250px), it is not the preferred solution because people can set their preferences to a different default (I think current is 180px), and when they do, images of a forced size may wind up dramatically bigger or smaller than non-forced size images. The better solution to a too-small or too-big image is to use the "upright" parameter and set a value for how many times bigger or smaller you want the image to be. For example, adding "upright=1.5" will make the image 150% of the default size, whatever that default size is for that individual user. Likewise, "upright=0.8" would shrink an image to be 80% of the default. It's a more complex syntax, and it took me forever to figure out how it works, but I see why it's a more elegant approach. Montanabw^(talk) 00:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Cat 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. - BilCat (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These accussatory edit-warring messages are stupid. For those who may wish to follow this, on the Cat article there was a photo of a cat with odd-coloured eyes. This is an abnormality which can occur in a great number of animals and is not specific to cats. With the limited space available for images, I felt this was not adding anything substantial to the article, so as per WP:BRD, I deleted the image with an edit summary. BilCat reverted this. I reverted this with another edit summary. BilCat reverted this without taking to the Talk page. I reverted this reversion, and here I am being accussed of edit warring. All I am doing is following WP:BRD.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And BillCat, haven't you read "Don't template the regulars?" DrChrissy is usually very willing to discuss issues if people raise them at talk. Montanabw^(talk) 07:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your recent calm attitude at Mustang. That other editor was blocked as a sockpuppet of ItsLassieTime, who was a sock that has stalked horse and western articles in the past. I actually AM open to improving that Mustang article to GAN, it's just that it's a complex situation and it seems too many people attracted to editing it are not wanting to do sound research, just injecting emotion...but sigh... but I appreciate that even after our recent spatting you were calm and reasonable there. Thank you. Montanabw^(talk) 07:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DrChrissy. I obviously was absolved of the accusation of being "a sock that has stalked horse and western articles in the past". I do not have a "username"; I use my own name. I am getting the impression you're a veterinarian, as is my father-who was affiliated with a veterinarian whose name you would recognize. I myself once worked for a Nobel prize winner in genetics. I know you find me annoying; a lot of people do. I gave up trying to not be annoying a long time ago; I just found that too many people were so easily annoyed that it was just not within my disposition to prevent it. But, we seem to be pretty much on the same wavelength. So, please bear with me. I only want truth, justice, and the American Way. (edit: four tildes coming:)Lynn Wysong (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am not a veterinarian, however, I do teach them. I do not find you annoying, but I find your style of continually updating your own Talk edits withount indenting, difficult to deal with when trying to help you with article editing. It is a given that I want truth and justice on WP, but as for the American Way, let's remember WP is an encyclopaedia for the World not just North Americans.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my experience is editing articles in which I was the only editor, so I do have some bad habits. Are you English? You spelled encyclopedia with the British spelling. So, would your concerns be alleviated if maybe there were more Wiki cross-references? Like Nevada? Because, assuming you are English, or from another British country, you may not be aware of all the politics surrounding mustangs here in the States, and how the misconceptions of their history feed into those politics. That's why I've been so stubborn on some things, and why other editors are so hostile, to the point of doing just about anything to silence me, as you may have noticed. So, specific geography is important to an accurate history, otherwise, "Western North America" or "Western United States" would be adequate. Lynn Wysong (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am English (British) and I live in England. That means (probably like 99.9% of people in this country) I am mostly unaware of the politics behind mustangs. I have come to understand some of this by editing and talking on the WP article. However, this does not mean I am unable to contribute positively to the article. If you were to make a draft re-write on the Talk page as I have requested, I can look at aspects such as wording, accurate reporting, reliability of sources, balanced reporting, etc. You mentioned I have concerns that need alleviating; please would you specify what you believe are the "concerns" that I have.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that you have concerns that the writing is geared to much to Americans, and assumes too much cultural knowledge on the part of the reader.Lynn Wysong (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have already made edits to address those concerns. This discussion should really be on the article's Talk page so that other editors can read and contribute.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to get a feel for where you're coming from, so to speak, in your comments, and give you a feel where I'm coming from. When I put that on the talk page, it seems to sideline the main discussion.Lynn Wysong (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should think more about the edit, rather than over-thinking the editor.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And instead of copying and pasting the entire article into the talk page twice, try a sandbox. Montanabw^(talk) 06:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought about that overnight, but thanks for the suggestion.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my view a lot of the recent content you have added to this article is weakly-sourced (primary/self-published) and undue, and could appear like POV-warrioring. This previously went to WP:NPOV/N and of course the advice was to use the best sources for content. Are you sure you're doing that? We should be preventing presenting an encyclopedic view of the subject summarizing accepted knowledge: listing things like the fact foie gras was banned at a 2011 German food festival risks turning the article into a miscellany of trivia (just as it would the other way if it listed famous menus/restaurants, etc. that featured foi gras). Wikipedia is not a battle ground for righting-great-wrongs. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please state exactly which references you think might be weak or un-suitable - I can not do anything about this until you specify which sources you object to. As for listing bans of foie gras - this is a controversial foodstuff. It is informative to the reader to see the history of bans being imposed, much like the section on the history of foie gras being served in Califonia, or indeed the history of its uptake as a food.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well using Amazon as a source for Amazon to take an example. But the entire new "Bans" section is undue/out-of-place. Anyway, I see you're not going to engage ... I've tried. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used Amazon because it is a policy statement by Amazon! Are you saying that if the government issues new legislation, we should not cite the government web-site which states the new legislation? As for my "not engaging", I think you are mistaking that for my not bowing down to your obvious biased approach to this article. I would also like to know why you brought this matter to my talk page rather than the talk page of foie gras, which is where it most certainly belongs. Perhaps you are trying to publicly embarass or humiliate me?__DrChrissy (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can only repeat what others have said: we should use the best sources; not dredge weak sources out of Google to support a preconceived POV. I raised this on your Talk page as I am, in part, questioning your editing approach and understanding of sourcing requirements; that would not be appropriate on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I can only repeat what I have said - please state which sources that in your opinion are not the best. For you to do this, you must already be aware of better sources than I have provided. Please state these. I have already found other sources for the Amazon ban and I am including these in the article, despite my belief that if a company states a policy, the best source is a statement by the company itself.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already said, the entire Bans section is undue. If there was (say) a peer-reviewed source or in-depth analysis piece discussing bans that would be a different matter, and could be usable. How did you find these sources? a Google search for "foie gras ban" maybe? How many more could be added this way, scores? hundreds? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming absurd! How I found the sources is completely and totally irrelevant. WP has no policy on this. WP has a policy that sources should be verifiable - all my sources are verifiable. You may wish to question the quality of a source, but to do this you must state which sources you are questioning (my 3rd repeat of this I think). As for whether the Bans section should be in the article, this is a subject for the article Talk page, not my Talk page - I think it is about time you "engaged".__DrChrissy (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is relevant how the sources are found, as searching for just one kind of source leads to skewed sourcing and so a skewed article, surely? Sources should be of high quality and content should be verifiable, and due. A shopping list of minor bans (Prince Charles!) sourced to weak sources is not due. I'll get around to editing this article again soon. I wonder if there's any really good source material on "bans"? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any sourcing method can lead to skewness - even going through dusty books page by page, because it is what we write here on wikipedia that matters, not how we found it. Using my mysterious sourcing method, I have refrained from citing dozens of potential sources which, although clearly verifiable, are clearly biased and I have dooubted their neurtality and/or accuracy. Please define what is a "weak" source.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DrChrissy

Thank you for your recents edits to the Altruism (biology) article. But you resized several of the photos and placed them one below the other. Not only are these illustrations noticeably smaller that all the other photographs in the article, which makes them look strange, they also do not really make the best sense in the order you have placed them. I wonder whether you would let me make them the same size as the pictures that come before and after them, and also to alternate them on the left and right sides of the page as before. I think the peacock and the racing horses shoudld be on either side of the page opposite one another to make the best sense - they are two sides of the same thought-coin (if I may coin a phrase - sorry about the unintended pun). Cheers Oggmus (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm probably being over fussy about this. The default/preferred size of images is 220px. That is why I reduced the size of these. They appear smaller than the other images in the article because the other images are over-sized at 250px. The reason I moved the peacock image is because it was sandwiching the text which should be avoided as per MOS:images. I can understand why you might want these images together, so, I'll make them into a multi-image with the peacock first. Have a look at it and tell me what you think. All the best.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrChrissy. I'm going to be fascinated to see what the 'multi-image' looks like. I have looked at the original sized photographs arranged as they were on a smaller screen, where "sandwiching of the text" is a problem on some pages, but in this case it looks absolutely fine and attractive to me. But then it might be that my less-than-perfect eyesight finds that these default sized images look stingy and mean like a cheaply printed book that has tried to save money on the ink! But let's see how it goes. Go well Oggmus (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done it! I think it looks good - but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Let me know what you think.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very impressed! That looks great. But can we now make the pygmy Kingfisher a bit bigger? It looks tiny and even mingier now. Sorry to be such a pain. The multi-image is a brilliant idea - no doubt about that. Many thanks. Oggmus (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it! I agree with you that the default image size is too small - especially when the images are really attractive onese. whispering I tell you what. Why don't you increase the size of the kingfisher and I will drop my fussiness watchdog....but don't tell anyone else, it's between you and me ok?  ;-)__DrChrissy (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:)  Oggmus (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Poultry_farming#Title_photo. --LL221W (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Foie gras. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.
This is being discussed on Talk. Instead of engaging there with a specific description of the edits, you are continually reverting and in the process messing up the encyclopedia by duplicating content across articles. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT At this stage, I have reverted only once! Yes, once! This notice is extremely premature and I take it to be a form of harassment by an editor who simply does not like less "paltable" facts being placed on the Foie gras article.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are at 3RR, and have not engaged with the discussion about these changes on the Talk page. If you revert again to exceed 3RR within the 24hr period, I shall report you at WP:AN3. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's right, it is 3R in 24 hrs. I was editing late last night and today is another day...but within 24hrs.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From recent comments it seems you may know personally an author of a work you cited at Foie gras. This raises at least the possibility of a conflict of interest. Please be aware of our WP:COI guidance, and also the Wikimedia Terms of Use which govern contributions. Best practice, if there is a COI, is to follow the guidance at WP:COIU. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Duncan is a scientist working in animal behaviour and welfare. I am a scientist working in animal behaviour and welfare. We meet at conferences and have a professional relationship. Is this a conflict of interest? If it is, I might as well give up editing on Wikipedia.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DrChrissy. I saw this because I read your message at the Teahouse. The message doesn't say you have a conflict of interest, only that you should check to make sure you don't. Just having met someone doesn't create a conflict of interest; we meet a lot of people in our lives. If you had a reason (besides general helpfulness) to be promoting this person's career or reputation, then there would be a conflict. For example, if you worked on the same project, which you mentioned in the article, or if you were in a supervisory position over him, or if he had asked you to work on the page, for example. A "professional relationship" can mean anything from waving across a conference room to authoring papers together. You will know best about this, and I'm sure that you can successfully follow the guidelines, since scientists are all experienced at creating documents to meet various criteria. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a conflict of interest its expertise and professionalism in your field. WP needs experts and expertise should not be confused with COI.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with olive and DrChrissy. I had to deal with a bunch of nonsense with someone who argued that because I am a member of a national organization with thousands of members, I therefore shouldn't edit articles in that area without a COI tag. How silly is that? Shall we ban historians from working on history articles or lawyers from law articles? I know! Let's ban all experts and let disgruntled 14 year olds who live in their mom's basement run wikipedia... or wait, maybe they already do? LOL!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 04:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all the above editors for their support and advice. I wave to Ian at conferences, I have worked with Ian and co-authored papers with him, but not the one which I cited, I am in no position to influence his career, and I have actually not spoken to him for about 7 years. I am perfectly happy there is no COI. @Alexbrn Would you agree?__DrChrissy (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. There is only the risk of COI if editing intersects with some kind of personal/professional/financial interest (in the sense of having some kind of stake), and in Ian Duncan's case that clearly isn't happening. You will know if you have any other kind of COI in relation to foie gras ... or any other topic. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Foie gras. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly - it is several days since I edited the page regarding this subject matter - how can the 3RRR possibly apply.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

slow motion edit warring is still edit warring. The notice is not telling that you have violated 3RR (you would get a notice of edit-warring board posting for that) -- this is warning you that you are heading there. there is zero consensus to restore that material on the Talk page. you did it, grave-dancingly, which makes it double-ugly. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a load of complete rubbish. There was never any discussion, let alone consensus, to move the Legislation section. I am simply placing it back where it belongs, and let's take the discussion from there as to whether it should be moved or not. As for "slow motion" or "grave-dancingly" (what a stupid word), I took advice from the pages on edit warring and decided to have a few days out to calm down. I did that, but still believe these sections should be included on the page. I suggest you start discussion on the Talk page about why these sections should not be included__DrChrissy (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've been talking about it - i thought we had mostly resolved it. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and i remind you again, to discuss content, not contributors. making remarks like ("what a stupid word") do nothing to help you gain consensus for what you want. Why do it? Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: First, from the edit history there seems to be consensus that the details of the legislation and bans belong in Foie gras controversy. Repeatedly reverting different editors can be seen as edit warring, even if it isn't three reverts in a day. The three-revert rule is only there as a clear example of when something is edit warring, it doesn't mean that everything else isn't. Second, the information is not the same that can be found in Foie gras so there is no redundancy (please look up duplicity, that word isn't really the right one in this context). Sjö (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sjö. My reason for reverting which placed detailed Legislation information in Foie gras is to put information back into its original place according to the status quo before a dispute arose about removing the legislation information. Look carefully back through the history (although I admit this is now tortuous, but I have tried to solve this with the thread below). There has not been a discussion of whether the legislation material should have been moved before this contentious edit was made. I have tried to put the material back into place so that the RfC which Jytdog is going to instigate can see the information in its original place, which is appropriate for WP:status quo. All would be resolved if editors stopped trying to move the information about and allowed the RfC to progress. This would provide a consensus as to where the information belongs.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What seems to be the problem? --John (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for getting back to me. WoW...where do I start. This pair of editors seem to think that as soon as any edit is made on Foie gras, the instant reaction is to revert it and then expect the contributor to prove to the very, very highest standards (those used by the medical fraternity on WP), that an edit should be accepted. They continually use subjective criteria e.g. weight, dueness, primary sources (meaning scientific papers in international peer-reviewed journals), undue length, as reasons for reverting edits. One of this pair even appears to be claiming that sources older than 5 years of age should not be allowed because this is the standard of medical articles. I have even been followed to my own Talk page and accused of plagiarism and that my sourcing techniques are sub-standard (surely it is the quality of my edit that is the concern, not how I found it. Forgive me, it is late here and I have not given you diffs or precise locations of comments or reverte. If you wish me to prepare these, I will. Once again, thank you for your interest.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

all in all, just some content disputes with some thin-skin/bad attitude. The only serious issue is COPYVIO, as far as I can see, which we have resolved now. So I would say, nothing to see, except for some popcorn-munchable drama. But here it is:

• Sources issue mentioned by drchrissy:

A fourth editor provided a list of possible sources about negative effects on ducks of force-feeding.0

i went through them and categorized them as primary/secondary/tertiary and commented that we should not use primary sources, and should use secondary or tertiary.... i did not include/exclude based on age, but did comment on age.

drcrissy reacted sarcastically to my noting that a ~9 year old source was "old"

drcrissy then actually asked what is "too old"

to which i replied that no policy or guideline (other than MEDRS which says ~5 years for most things, and noted the MEDRS ~may~ apply to vet med) defines "too old", but RS does say "some scholarly material may be outdated" - I still made no actual judgement as to usability or not, based on age

Alexbrn helpfully noted that he had done a search and there has been little study on the issue after 2009

to which i replied that "old" is maybe not too old, indeed.

• COPYVIO issue

In the meantime Alexbrn noted that content that drcrissy had added to the article was just possibly maybe COPYVIO, "was copy/pasted from the source, which takes us into WP:PLAGIARISM territory"

to which drcrissy reacted with his favorite exclamation of "rubbish".

and left a nasty note on Alexbrn's Talk page

i pointed out that it was mighty close paraphrasing

i pinged Moonriddengirl with drcrissy's permission to get her take on it

Moonriddengirl found that "I'm afraid that the content does follow very closely."

which drcrissy again rejected

I then asked the 4th editor, who just happened to be part of the copvio cleanup crew, his opinion on the copyvio thing

and he said, "DrChrissy You didn't paraphrase that text anywhere near enough. You should spend time on this, reading and contemplating wp:close paraphrasing."

and in a post filled with objections, drchrissy finally agreed that if it comes back in (there are other issues withi UNDUE and OFFTOPIC) it should be re-written. so much dramah. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• the other thing going on, is that drchrissy had been building content in the Foie gras that duplicates content in the Foie gras controversy article about legislation, bans etc. Alexbrn and I believe that we shouldn't have duplicate content in two articles, per WP:SYNC, and instead we should use WP:SUMMARY style, so we have implemented that, which has made drchrisssy unhappy. (under discussion here) In an unpretty move, Drchrissy took advantage of your block on Alexbrn to edit war the content back in. Which I took back out

so that all happened too.

all in all, just some content disputes with some thin-skin/bad attitude. The only serious issue is COPYVIO, as far as I can see, which we have resolved now. So I would say, nothing to see, except for some popcorn-munchable drama. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a storm in a tea cup. Jytdog and Alexbrn do sterling work combating sloppy sourcing and POV vandals on human health related areas, using WP:MEDMOS as their criteria. There is a danger, after working diligently for a while in such an area, of developing a blinkered and jaundiced view of anyone not editing according to the standards you are use to. This can start spilling over to editors who are neither writing in health related areas nor are POV vandals. DrChrissy is such an editor. He is a highly competent editor writing on matters relating to animal behaviour. WP:MEDMOS can be seriously inadequate in that area, particularly in its stance on primary sources. Drchrissy's part in this is that he takes the attacks on him seriously. Still, if you guys, the three of you, are having fun carrying on like this, then by all means keep going. But try and keep nastiness out of it and keep it away from the article talk pages. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

with that, i almost entirely agree (as we discussed, i think primary sources are way over-used in WP) :) Jytdog (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC) (amend what alexbrn wrote, to be quote, to avoid interpretation and present just the facts. My apologies. Jytdog (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I do not agree with the way you characterised the one-off issue DrChrissy had with close paraphrasing. You say for example the issue was initiated when "Alexbrn noted that content that drcrissy had added to the article was just possibly maybe COPYVIO". Alexbrn in fact said outright that the issue had moved into "WP:PLAGIARISM territory". In the context that was unnecessary and inflammatory. Both you and Alexbrn have been behaving towards DrChrissy in a manner which seems intended to inflame. I agree with DrChrissy that the MEDMOS hardline approach you and Alexbrn both adopt can be lazy nonsense when applied outside medical areas. I have written various articles myself which revolve around a single primary source, for example Planetary boundaries and Self-propelled particles. Your notion that sources in science that are older than five years should not be used is, in some contexts, also risible dribble. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being asked not to, you are continuing to base comments about me on your supposition about what my "intent" is – suppositions which I have already said are wrong. By saying that the (fairly obvious plagiarism) was taking us into "plagiarism territory" I meant to be soft, by saying we were entering somewhere where plagiarism might be an issue (in the same way bandits might be an issue when one enters "bandit territory"). And MEDMOS!? I am not that familiar with it and don't believe I have ever raised it in relation to foie gras? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 11:40, 20 March 2015‎ {UTC)

Epipelagic In response to drchrissy's note on his Talk page, Alexbrn wrote: " Wikipedia article Talk page comment about an edit (by an anonymized editor) is hardly a public accusation, and I said the edit "took us into WP:PLAGIARISM territory" which is about as tentative & gentle a way as it could be expressed. I hope you take plagiarism and copyright violation as seriously as you take this "accusation". ". And you, Moonriddengirl, and I alll agreed that the content was problematic... and in my view, it is the most important issue with the content that drcrhissy introduced. Not inflammatory at all, but dealing with content issues on the basis of PAG, with clarity and civility.

I have not been behaving toward drchrissy much at all. He is the one who keeps commenting on contributors, not content.

On the primary/secondary thing... every content policy - OR, NPOV, and VERIFY - calls us to use secondary sources, as do the two sourcing guidelines, RS and MEDRS. The call for us to use secondary sources is deep in the guts of WP and goes right to what we do here as editors, not authors. We rely on secondary sources to interpret the primary sources (we cannot) and for the crucial meta-decisions we need to make about how much WEIGHT any idea should get, relative to the rest of what reliable sources say. I do bring that to bear a lot in my editing - I acknowledge that - and I will be happy to defend that anywhere, anytime. Important thing here , i never made the general statement - and I never would - that "sources in science that are older than five years should not be used". (please see what i wrote again, if you like) That mischaracterizes what I wrote and violates the TPG, and doing that is uncharacteristic for you, as far as I know you. Please strike it. Thanks.

this appears to be devolving. Above, John asked what is up, in response to drchrissy's claim of bad behavior on Foie gras here, on Alexbrn's Talk page. drchrissy responded with what i saw as an inaccurate description of what has been going on, and i provided my version, backed by diffs. It is unclear to me what value there is, in continuing this. Jytdog (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn wrote above "By saying that the (fairly obvious plagiarism) was taking us into "plagiarism territory" ..." You are again stating publicly that you believe I have committed plagiarism. I have already conceded that 9 (nine) words were copy and pasted, but I have also emphasized there was an attribution to the source. Are you really serious about accusing me of plagiarism?__DrChrissy (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog.

In your message above, you wrote that Epipelagic had stated you had written a general statement "sources in science that are older than five years should not be used". By placing this in quotes, you seem to be directly attributing this to Epipelagic. This is a false accusation. Epipelagic discussed the issue by starting with "Your notion...". Yet again, an inaccurate and inflammatory edit.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog. I notice you have made an edit to my talk page which hides part of an original posting. This is my talk page - I do not believe in censorship or self-censorship. Please te-instate your original posting.

I disagree - what he wrote is not my notion - I never said that. But really, John asked and has been answered - he'll decide if there is anything for him to do here. With regard to my changing my comments, I have either redacted {using strike and underlining, and noting that I did that) something that was already commented on, or straightup edited something that had not been commented on. Both are fine, per WP:REDACT. With regard to your rights here on your Talk page: per WP:TPG: 1) "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page"; 2) "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages" (keeping #1 in mind, of course); 3) you can ask me not to write here anymore. Jytdog (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you perhaps deliberately misunderstanding my post? It clearly states that Epipelagic started their discussion "Your notion...". It is not being suggested that you said this, so please attend to your false accusation. Regarding this being my talk page, I can request you not to distort what you have previously posted and then thought better about - something you have done before.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i don't agree with what you say; he mischaracterized "my notion". I won't continue this, which is really getting sideshowy. Would you please just talk through content issues we are having on Foie gras, at the Foie gras talk page? Discussions about content do not have to get personal or dramatic, ever. Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epipelagic did not mischaracterise your notion. Epipelagic very thoughtfully listed several possible sources to improve the foie gras article. You then reprinted the list and added whether or not they were "old" thereby discrediting them as valuable sources. Given that Foie gras production is hundreds of years old and is a gradually vanishing practice (and therefore there is little ongoing research), it is nonsensical to apply a "5-year worthiness" criterion that relates to human medical research which is current and ongoing. You left me with exactly the same impression that I believe Epipelagic had.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not responsible for your sloppy reading. Nor am i responsible for your insistence on maintaining your sloppiness in the face of my directly telling you that your reading is incorrect and providing you with the exact thing i said. so there you go. although i use salty language i generally write with precision. especially when i have someone crawling up my asshole with a microscope. I am unwatching your Talk page. This is a fucking circus. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please retain civility on my Talk page and do not use prophanities.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please withdraw the RfC. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC I raised has been in place for almost 4 days now. I have been waiting for others to comment on whether this should be withdrawn. There has not been a single message or jot of support for your request for withdrawl. Therefore I will not withdraw the RfC.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

About this dif:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Foie gras, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the page with a statement that information was contained in a collapsed box below my text. This was all posted as one message as can be seen [[2]]. Jytdog, you then made an edit which seperated my text from the collapsed box. It was you who made the first edit of another's edit, I was simply returning my edit to where I first placed it. I then replaced other edits to the chronological order in which they were posted.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

do not move other editors' comments without their consent. i put it where i did for a reason; the location is meaningful. every comment has a datestamp that shows chronology. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC) (add "out" Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Are you saying you had a reason for splitting and moving my text from the collapse box to which it referred? If so, please give this reason.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it is extremely obvious that the large green collapsed box, is what you refer to in your comment where you reference " I have included the material below in collapsed form." It is extremely obvious that my comment was made after yours. There is no confusion for anyone with a working neuron. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC) (removed bolding from 2 instances of "extremely obvious" and "no confusion" per request below. Jytdog (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

You are using bold to shout at me again. Please stop this. You have done this before and ended up apologising. Please strike through your bold. The point is that you changed my edit without my permisson - you split my text from the related collapsed box. You can not deny this. You are in breach of WP:TPG. Please change your behaviour immediately or I will have no recourse other than to raise an ANI - I would hate to have to do this against another WP editor but you are giving me no option.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologized for bolding an entire comment in the midst of the RfC, which was over the top and different from emphasis of individual words. . and with regard to my comment - if you want to bring that to ANI, knock your self out. not actionable, as it is extremely obvious that the hatted content is what you were referring to; my comment did not change the meaning of yours at all. (and on an extremely wikilawyering technical note, you didn't sign beneath the hatted content so technically it wasn't part of your comment at all... so not in spirit, nor in letter, did i violate the TPG with that comment) in any case it was bad judgement on your part to bring in the edit warring thing in the midst of the RfC; once you did that, in my view it needed the background... but the whole thing is off point. again, if you do the simple thing of withdrawing the RfC, instead of doubling down on drama, all this goes away and we can frame a mutually acceptable, useful RfC to guide us going forward... and we can get on with it. why will you not withdraw the RfC? Please answer. Thanks (and oh what the heck, i will remove the bolding since you are focusing on that) Jytdog (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You edited the posting of another member without their permission! This must surely be in breach of one of the cornerstones of respect and civility for editors of WP. By the way, I answered yesterday, with reasons, why I will not withdraw the RfC. Please keep up with disputes and issues that you are unilaterally causing__DrChrissy (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this and this are the kind of TPG violations that are actionable per the warning I left here Jytdog (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting I made those edits?__DrChrissy (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no, that is a crazy suggestion and i never went anywhere near there. if you haven't noticed, let me tell that you that i try to be extremely clear - i don't hint around or "suggest" anything. i even make things bold to make sure my point is absolutely clear, as i did above, before i struck it per your objection. i am very committed to communicating clearly and unambiguously. btw that user was just blocked. Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you post those diffs on my talk page?__DrChrissy (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

above you wrote "You edited the posting of another member without their permission!" at around the same time that you were exploring this dif of mine where i did change another editor's edits on a Talk page, and you wrote this and this. I assumed that is what you were addressing. i did not edit your comment at Foie gras at all. i replied to it. Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide an answer - why did you leave diff pages implying these were edits I had made? Please remove them.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i have seen no place where you have answered the question "why will you not withdraw the RfC?" please provide a dif. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please do provide a diff of where you answered the question. i do want to keep that conversation going. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC) (striking - pointless; no answer is coming and i am beating a dead horse trying to get one. Unwatching this page again.Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

about this and this, WP:REDACT is absolutely clear on this:

* Other than minor corrections for insignificant typographical errors made before other editors reply, changes should be noted to avoid misrepresenting the original post. For example:

• • Mark deleted text with <s>...</s>, or <del>...</del>, which render in most browsers as struck-through text (e.g., wrong text).
  • Mark inserted text with <u>...</u>, or <ins>...</ins>, which renders in most browsers as underlined text (e.g., corrected text).
  • If it is necessary to explain changes, insert comments in square brackets (e.g., "the default width is 100px 120px [the default changed last month]") or consider inserting a superscript note (e.g., "^[corrected]") linking to a later subsection for a detailed explanation.
  • Append a new timestamp (e.g., "; edited ~~~~~" using five tildes) after the original timestamp at the end of the post.
• Removing or substantially altering a comment after someone else has replied may deprive the reply of its original context; however, leaving false text unrevised could be worse. If it is necessary to make such an edit, consider the following steps:
  • Mark up your edits as shown above.
  • Add a comment in the edited comment (in square brackets) or below the comment to explain that you made the edit and explain why you needed to do this after others had replied to it.
  • Contact the person(s) who replied, posting on their talk page to explain the change.

It is fine to change your comment, but you must redact it, like this to remove things and like thisto add things. You cannot just edit it. doing so makes my response, nonsense. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Foie gras. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you put this notice on my Talk page: Where am I supposed to be edit-warring?__DrChrissy (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you are edit warring at talk:Foie gras: you are at 3RR right now.

• here
• here and
• here

there you go. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ermmmm...I can count only 2 reversions. As for edit warring, all I have been doing is asking for advice on how to make the redactions you are requesting. You have shown me how to do it, but not where to do it. Please explain why you put an edit warring template on my talk page.__DrChrissy (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Dog behavior page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

big problem with creating that new ctegory - you hadnt located it in the category tree anywhere (ie a new cat needs to be linked with another cat... so to speak - big problem the animal control title is linked to a crappy species specific article that is a us specific issue (euphemism for dog catcher) - and it would appear that animal control (we have kangaroo, camel, goat, and other species culling occurring in australia) is a poorly developed part of any particular cat tree... satusuro 15:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this - I had forgotten about the linking.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

its a leaky hole, boat or for the worse - a failed connection as it is - and I do not think it should link to anything in the category structure that is the slightest linked to dog catchers - it is something far more bigger picture and the complex heritage of eugenics/population control and so on satusuro 15:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have linked it to Category:Animals. THanks for this. Is the problem for this new category now resolved?__DrChrissy (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Animal killing is more appropriate imho - moving the context now. satusuro 15:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No! Please don't do that. Culling does not mean killing. It means seperation, and then sometimes killing. What is wrong with leaving it in category:animals?__DrChrissy (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on reflection, leave it as it is. I am not 100% comfortable with it but let's leave that to other editors. Thanks again for your help in this.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if you realise but a very large number of category creators never add projects on talk pages, and a vast number of categories never get checked. As to whether comfort is involved - although not set into stone - as we know anyone can edit - culling - the article is linked - and that in itself leads the reader to the culling article - regardless of the category - that should qualify things... somewhat. As to other editors, some categories and parts of category trees remain untouched for years, so I wouldnt hold the breath on that one satusuro 15:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should learn to archive your talk page it is getting a bit murderous in its size. satusuro 15:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know how to archive - please see that I have already done this. I was going to archive recently until edits on here by an editor led to me raising a current ANI against them and I felt forr ease of the administrators dealing with this, the comments should be left in the context of the way I usually interact with editors on my Talk page.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

eek, you must enjoy controversy, I see... as my edit count gets higher, I tend to avoid stuff like that, in the long term little is important enough to get into that sort of sorts. oh well culling has its category, and as my part of the planet sleeps now, good night and travel safely... satusuro 15:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I hate controversy but this editor simply went well over the top.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apology to you at ANI was real. I am sorry for being uncivil to you and you will see better behavior from me going forward. Best regards. Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended. The discussion over there has remained admirably focused given the contentious nature of the subject matter, and I was just trying to maintain that. Respectfully, Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 00:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...Strong oppose delete may be misread by the closer to be Strong oppose...delete. Speed read error? *lol* Just thought you might want to clarify it with a strike so it reads Strong Keep. Interesting MfD either way. Atsme☯^Consult 20:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I will attend to it. It's a very interesting MfD but the thing I really do not like about it is that in meeting interesting people such as yourself as a consequence, I have become reluctant to chat to and support you (and others) because that will be seen as a negative (conspiratorial) behaviour by the naughty ducks out there.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COIducks customarily bully their opposition, that way they can push their POV without interruption, all the while pretending they are the defenders of PAG. They make WP:OWN look like Ned In The 1st Reader. Atsme☯^Consult 20:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, as per usual, Atsme, but what are we to do? It all looks so obvious and absurd to me, and I cannot figure how this isn't the case for the majority. When hurried, those interested in iVoting may look to familiar/powerful voices and take their lead. That is a problem as the loudest voices aren't necessarily Saints of neutrality.

What DrChrissy says is true too, and it's done on purpose. If your position has no substance, you can still win content disputes on WP by making sure your opposition is scattered about tending to warnings, noticeboards brought against them, and well aware that there is no shortage of editors willing to spend countless hours fighting so that their (pro-industry) POV remains dominant. But NO WAY does this have ANYTHING to do with big business, even when it looks like quintessential spin doctoring, and how dare one suggest otherwise?! petrarchan47tc 22:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI guidelines clearly state, "COI editing is strongly discouraged." It also states, "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question." But above all, it states "Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Wikipedia." I realize COIducks is an essay, but it's an extension of the COI guideline. Why wouldn't it apply there, too? Actually, wouldn't it apply per WP:ACTUALCOI?? I don't understand why there has not been more active involvement regarding keeping this stuff in check. If they did, ARBCOM may dry up a little, as would AN, ANI, and 3RR. Whoop, whoop! *lol* Atsme☯^Consult 03:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the backlash you and the essay are experiencing can be seen as one reason why there has not been more active involvement regarding keeping this stuff in check. Think about it. No one wants to go through that. petrarchan47tc 03:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could simply be because the essay is as terrible as most people think it is, no? Alexbrn (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, no - it looks great now. Just keeps getting better! Geogene just added a bit more, and the whole things flows so nicely now. It's amazing what productive collaboration can do. Too bad it was bombarded by a pointless MfD. Any editor who is truly against the COI battle at Wiki should be supporting this essay. Those who don't....well, go figure. Atsme☯^Consult 03:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say my view of what's "great" probably differs from yours. As for "Any editor who is truly against the COI battle [supports me!]" ... come on, that's a bit ... Donald Rumsfeld isn't it? Perhaps editors experienced in doing "battle" in this field are saying your approach is wrong because - they know better. Just a thought (again). Alexbrn (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's your POV, and I disagree with it the same way you consistently disagree with mine. Night all... Atsme☯^Consult 03:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Scrambler therapy. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Alexbrn (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DrChrissy, thanks for your message at Frog eyes, which consists of two pieces of advice: (1) Discuss the change on the talk page. In this case, there is not much to discuss. The information that the text contains OR is already in the tag I added. The text that was there before already was OR, and nobody had seen a problem with it, even though it lost its meaning after the addition of the "than". (2) "[Y]ou should try really hard to find a source for it - I suspect it's half-life will not be long otherwise!": That is sound advice, and it's what I tell others, too. But to be honest, these days, I don't really worry about whether my edits stand. I have learned that from bees and ants, which arguably |^{[According to whom?]} are better at running massive communities than H. sapiens. Bees make decisions about where to move the colony in a democratic way, and the striking difference to humans is that once a bee has expressed her vote in a dance, she doesn't go on and on about it, like humans do, if nobody follows her. And when you take the time to watch ants, it can be exasperating. Once I gave them a morsel which was a bit too big for their entrance, and they pulled it back and forward for at least 30 minutes, until I stopped watching them. But the amazing thing is: It's working for them. So, at Wikipedia, I don't expect everything to work out as I had in mind, and certainly not right away. I contribute my part and let the other volunteers take it from there. I wouldn't be spending so much time here if I didn't have some trust in the wisdom of crowds. — Sebastian 22:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Dog behavior page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drchrissy, I saw you started a section at Talk:Acupuncture that was focused squarely on your perception of editor behavior. I've noticed you've done that in several places now. This is against WP:TPG, which I know you're familiar with because you've quoted it to me before. Of course you know article Talk pages are to be used to discuss improvements to article content and not other editors. Could I ask you to please stop doing that? If you have an issue with editor behavior you should take it up with the editor directly at the User Talk page first, or at an appropriate noticeboard for discussing behavior. Thanks... Zad68 13:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zad. I was following the essay. This states -

"Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! If you notice this happening, start a section on the talk page and place your comments there. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself. For example..." (my bold). Is the essay wrong to suggest this?__DrChrissy (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about Wikipedia's Talk Page Guidelines, which states in the "nutshell" at the top: Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor. There is nothing at the Edit Summary help page that would indicate to use the article Talk page to discuss editor behavior. If that wasn't clear to you before, please understand it now. Article talk pages are not to be used for discussing editor behavior. OK? Zad68 04:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And as I clearly indicated above, I was following the advice of an essay, the relevant parts of which I highlighted in bold. You are deliberately ignoring my question - is the essay wrong?__DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The essay..? It's really hard to say if the essay is wrong when you don't say what essay, DrChrissy. A couple of sentences can't be taken in isolation like that. That said, many essays are wrong; others are right. Essays range from the quirky to the almost-used-as-policy, like WP:CIR (which is quite often given as a block rationale). See how it says at the top of essays — provided they have the proper essay template — "Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints"? That's the truth. Bishonen | talk 17:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen I am pretty sure Chrissy is talking about the Edit summary instructions found here: Help:Edit summary. Bish can you read through those instructions and determine how a resonable editor could read those instructions and come away with the impression that an article Talk page is an appropriate place to start a section that focuses on the behavior of a particular editor? I sure didn't get that impression from them. Zad68 22:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your page, Zad68 Bishonen | talk 22:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Chrissy, the Help:Edit summary instructions are not wrong, but they also do not give you permission to use an article Talk page to discuss editor behavior. Right at the top of Help:Edit summary is says this:

Please note where that page says this: It is not one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines; where something is inconsistent with this page, please defer to those. As WP:TPG is "one of those", a guideline, the Help:Edit summary page itself directs you to honor TPG above itself. And, as I have already said, WP:TPG says not to use an article Talk page to discuss editor behavior. Will you please indicate now that this is clear, and go ahead and remove the section from the article Talk page you have created and which is not in accordance with WP:TPG? Thanks... Zad68 22:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the WP:MEDRS article you said to me "Let's talk about the content, rather than the editors, please". Rather than clutter the page I thought I'd ask for your reasoning here. I really have no idea why you would say that since I was talking to Montana rather than about her. Please explain. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to your comment here [3] "If you worked on bird, frog, or bee articles, for examples, and the ways that various chemicals may be affecting them, you would understand. IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)" This does not adress the content being discussed in the threaded discussion, it simply states your opinion about another editor.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gandydancer. I have a friendly suggestion. You seem to be in favour of applying WP:MEDRS to veterinary articles, perhaps including bees. How about you select an article in your area of interest, I will copy it to my sandbox and then apply WP:MEDRS to it and we can both see what happens. Just a friendly suggestion - I would be interested in the outcome too.__DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Novel idea, DrChrissy. I too would be interested in seeing the outcome, so please keep me in the loop. Atsme☯^Consult 17:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DrChrissy, I have no idea why you believe that. I have worked very hard to present unbiased and factual information for our readers who are concerned about the ever-increasing use of chemicals in agriculture. At one time I tried to work on some of our medical articles but I gave up on them a long time ago when it seemed to me that the only WP approved method of treating illness was more and more pharmaceuticals. Gandydancer (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gandydancer - please believe me...I am friendly. If I have misinterpreted your working or thoughts in any way, I immediately apologise. I agree with your efforts to neutrally inform people about the possible side-effects of chemicals. I am concerned that MEDRS will prevent the neurality of yours, and others, comments.__DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out why "Ibid.", although correct for print references, is not correct for Wikipedia because the preceding reference might be altered. Because I am fairly new to this I did not know that. However, I believe your correct response was not to just undo an edit, but to fix it. Still, thank you.

I could not fix it because I was not certain which reference the "Ibid" applied to - the very reason why it is problematic.__DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Dog behavior page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

not sure you are aware of that. just an essay - not a guideline. there has been insufficient consensus to elevate it to a guideline. Jytdog (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruption on this article. You are experienced enough to read the entire guideline. "Here are some rules of thumb for keeping an article up-to-date, while maintaining the more-important goal of reliability. These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a human lol what did you ask me? lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolidon (talk • contribs) 18:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hey im a person . im just editing i dont know how to edit summaries. im just helping out. you know im editing very professionally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolidon (talk • contribs) 18:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

im just editing important info. im not destroying anythingCoolidon (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting you are destroying anything, but you are making so many rapid edits that I am wondering whether they are accurate. There is a box for you to leave a comment about your edit near to where you press save - indicate why you did it, for example.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dog behavior, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intromission (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first appearances categories? I'm just going based on whatever the article itself says, so the source will vary based on the article. Abyssal (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see - thanks very much for replying.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Acupuncture 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 17:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quackwatch

Quackwatch as a RS for quackery and fraud has been discussed multiple times on WP:RS/N. Until demonstrated otherwise, please don't tag Quackwatch as questionable RS on multiple articles. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many editors who are not convinced QW is a reliable source in several contexts. I am one of those. Until you, or another editor, show that QW is a reliable source in the context I (or others) have tagged it, the tagging remains legitimate. The onus is on the editor adding material to show that QW is an RS in the context it is being used.DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to adopt a more nuanced position. Your wholesale rejection isn't helping, and so far you're not demonstrating that you understand our content and sourcing policies as well as you should. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not a wholesale rejection which is why I have raised a case-by-case discussion. When you say "our", just exactly who are you talking about?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Our" = "Wikipedia's". -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just how much expertise does it take to declare reflexology quackery? It makes a mockery of many tenets of science. Jim1138 (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what point are you trying to make? This reads as complete nonsensense!DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comment here. Apparently someone has directly called you a fringe editor, and I understand your dislike of that occurring. You can fix that. I suspect you may be getting caught somewhere in the crossfire because you associate with, aid, and thank editors who are known pushers of fringe POV. Therefore you risk getting the "guilt by association" treatment, and that may be unfortunate....or not. It's your call. If you stay away from them, don't support them, and support mainstream, science based, editors and sources, you'll be able to shed your growing bad rep and gain a good reputation.

You have also been engaged in attacking Quackwatch, the largest and most respected (and hated by quacks) anti-quackery resource on the internet. Being anti-anti-quackery makes, by default, one pro-quackery. Perception means everything, and you can control how you are perceived. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at my user page to see which articles I have created/edited. By the way, there is this little principle in WP editing... ASSUME GOOD FAITH. This is a very useful page for new/inexperienced editors to read, or those challenged with their lack of ability to interact civily with other editors.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up, doc. I am still taking care of family affairs and will be indefinitely but that doesn't mean I can't have occasional pop-ins. Please feel free to keep me up to date on what is happening because I'm sure I will be behind events. LesVegas (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Quackwatch. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. [4] --Ronz (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I thought you might have actually looked at the web-site.[5]

You wrote, "Please keep your edit summaries a little more civil and AGF": Sorry you feel that way. What's uncivil about "OR to promote a personal POV", let alone violates AGF? --Ronz (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No response? Is it safe for me to assume that you wrote it on the spur of the moment and it would be best to just ignore your comment entirely? --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I do not like it when editors accuse me of OR. I would not do that. It is not always obvious if a citation is needed for an edit inclusion, especially if it is obvious where it came from - clearly it was not obvious for you. Second, to link this OR accusation to a suggestion that I did this to promote a personal POV is a personal attack. How can you presume to think I was promoting a personal POV - you do not know me. Perhaps you would like to suggest what POV I was supposed to be pushing.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it upset you.

It was unsourced, so OR applies, as others have pointed out.

When a source was finally offered, it was misrepresented in such a way as to promote a pov that did not exist in the source. While that pov might not be yours, I believe it safe to label as a personal pov when it's not coming from sources.

Have you reviewed the Arbcom rulings relevant to the articles you have been working on? They go over these exact issues in detail, along with many others of which you should be aware if you want to work cooperatively on those articles. --Ronz (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Quackwatch article does not state specifically that some of its articles are not peer reviewed. The closest it gets is "Nguyen-Khoa stated that the implementation of a peer review process would improve the site's legitimacy". By deleting my comment here[6], which POV is being pushed I wonder?DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're no longer addressing the concerns. Are we done then? --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which concerns?DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guess we're done then. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you won't answer the question, I guess so.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid leaving comments about other editor's behavior in edit summaries. [7] The ES should be about your edit, not another's behavior. See WP:ESDONTS Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really think you have misdirected this comment.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your edit summaries a little more civil and AGF Your ES made no mention of your edit. One would assume that it was directed at the previous editor. Please use the editor's talk page for this kind of discussion. As you added no citation and "Balance" does not state that it was from a source, one could easily come to the OR conclusion. Please note that your second edit was also reverted. Jim1138 (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does the italicised sentence refer to? I made the edit summary thinking that the the previous editor would have actually read the web-site under discussion and therefore recognised it was not OR. I think if an editor accusses another of OR in the edit summary, they should expect a rebuff in the subsequent ES.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that because you made the assumption that another editor was wrong, that assumption gives you the right to behave inappropriately? --Ronz (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would have actually read the website under discussion? How many pages does Quackwatch.org consist of? Why would you assume that an editor would read the entire website before reverting? Reverting an unexplained, unsourced edit is quite proper. See WP:V Jim1138 (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case you weren't aware, any removal of material can technically count as a revert, which puts you at 5RR on Acupuncture today. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] If the article had not been protected, this could have earned you a block. Also, the article is under Arbcom-imposed discretionary sanctions per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. If you are not already familiar with discretionary sanctions, please read the link, as it means there is a much lower threshold for getting blocked or topic banned. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chrissy regarding your question here, all that's happening at this point is general discussion of whether ArbCom should take the case, and what the scope of the case should be. The case hasn't started yet, you should feel free to make comments regarding whether you feel it would improve things if ArbCom took the case and if so what they should examine. Nobody making comments now will necessarily be a "named party" in the case. Zad68 13:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding - also you should clean up your comment, put your name in section heading, remove the dup boilerplate text. I'd do it for you but I know you don't particularly appreciate others touching your comments. Zad68 13:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Zad, thanks for the above, and please do the cleanup for me - I would appreciate that.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, no problem. Zad68 13:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank-you.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• In addition to what you've already been told, concerning your request whether you are a party: technically, for the moment, you are not. Parties are listed in the "Involved parties" section. Please note, however, that this may change as the case progresses, but I have to admit that I know little of the dispute and, so, cannot tell at the moment if you're likely to be added. That said, even if you were added as a party, that does not necessarily mean that you did something wrong, only that ArbCom was asked to review your conduct.

  The difference between parties and non-parties is that parties can use more words and diffs in their evidence submissions (the rule is 500/50 for non-parties and 1000/100 for parties, subject to extensions at the discretion of the drafting arb) and that only parties can be sanctioned at the end of a case. Both, however, can participate. Furthermore, although only parties can be sanctioned by ArbCom, not all parties get necessarily sanctioned.

  Anyway, the case has not even been accepted yet. But you're welcome to add your comment indicating whether you think ArbCom should take the case and what the scope should be. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sussed out why you could not find the JAMA page mentioning QW when we could. You have to be signed in. No autobiography needed, just an email address. Simply make use of the Contact Us and you have accesses (and you can leave a message). The customer number and browser information you can leave blank. They are not obligatory.--Aspro (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see - thanks very much for sorthing that out.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note too: That right at the top of Contact Us the paragraph ends with : “Please note that we cannot provide medical advice or referrals, nor do we perform literature searches. “ Which kinds of nullifies the current debate on an article which I will not refer to. Not going to say any more 'cause, I now have some free time, where I can unplug the phones, disconnect the WiFi, TV, etc, and relax from this maddening world of people that where born knowing that they are right and will always believe they are are right. Except when they find themselves in danger of being proven wrong, when they simply move the goal post to show that they were right along. A Wikipedia:Wikibreak at last. Yippee-yi-ay, yippee-yi-o, I'm on my holiday !!!!--Aspro (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know the feeling! Enjoy the break!DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion

The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

You asked a question here. DS = discretionary sanctions. I hope this helps. Thank you for your collaboration. QuackGuru (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Veterinary acupuncture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Implantation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Acupuncture 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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.
As usual... NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is total utter nonsense. I have made 1 (one) revert!DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try again. One ill-advised change, two reverts to keep it in there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted discussion of editor conduct on Talk:Acupuncture. As I explained in my edit summary, that belongs on the user's talk page, or another forum designed for discussing such matters. The article talk page is for discussing changes to the article, specifically. That being said, regarding your claims, it is not expressly against our editing guidelines to call an edit "clumsy", "inappropriate", etc. The section title was not "Chrissy is clumsy for making this edit", and there is a difference. I understand that it's easy to take objections to your edits personally, but in order to collaborate, others must be able to discuss the changes we all make openly, which sometimes means describing an edit with unfavorable language. It's best to respond to the characterization by citing sources as dispassionately as possible.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was raising the issue of material being deleted from the talk page.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? No you weren't. You started a new section to complain about a personal attack. The only reference you made to removing material is another editor removing the section heading you were complaining about (his own content), which is not only allowed, but should have been in line with your wishes.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not feel that other editors should know what is going on at that Talk page?DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to repeat the same thing over and over. An article talk page is not for discussing editor conduct. "Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion." Feel free to place your comment in any other venue that is appropriate. I've already pointed you to several. I would recommend his talk page for a minor dispute, or WP:ANI for a larger one requiring sanctions. Good luck.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"More clumsy changes to lead" is no more inappropriate than "Inappropriate thread heading and editing" and I didn't think you wanted your copyright violation pointed out on the arbcom page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see NeilN messed up the header code for his own 3RR warning on this page, no doubt by accident while adding a comment.[13] It meant the header didn't display properly and didn't show up in the Table of contents. And just now you reverted BullRangifer's fix with the fatuous wikilawyering edit summary: "Do not edit my user page without discussing this with me first."[14] Are you aware that Wikipedia is not a battleground, and that we're not supposed to seize opportunites to behave obnoxiously? Please revert yourself. Bishonen | talk 11:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The point is that NeilN has been accusing me of clumsy editing. Need I say more?DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you seized the opportunity? No indeed, you needn't say more, I've got the picture. Please revert yourself. Bishonen | talk 11:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Of course I seized the opportunity - just like any editor would who has been baited, goaded, insulted and attacked at every possible opportunity. Something about throwing stones and glass-houses...DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do not see the difference between referring to misleading article content, deliberately written and forced in, despite the objections of others, and accidental keystrokes? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DrChrissy, I have no idea why you are bringing any of your problems with NeilN into this. I made a gnomish edit to fix an obvious error. That way the section heading would be visible and place the section in your TOC. You reacted as if I had done you wrong, even admitting you "seized the opportunity" to make a point violation. That's not a very collaborative way to treat someone who's trying to help.

Bishonen then civilly asked you to fix the error yourself, and you treated him badly as well. That's doubling down in efforts to reach new lows in bad behavior. Congrats! You (sadly) succeeded.

My fix is covered by WP:REFACTOR. It was a simple attempt to help. You don't own your talk page to such a degree that you're allowed to violate AGF and be a jerk. Any decent human being would have thanked me, but you went out of your way to behave badly, although I was surprised that you'd even treat an attempt to be nice in such a manner. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised, but I had forgotten your habitual bent. It confirms that AGF is not part of your genetic makeup.

That explains your battlefield behavior, which seems to know no ends. Maybe you need to take a break, either voluntarily or involuntarily. You are no longer here to improve the encyclopedia, but to do battle. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Of course I seized the opportunity - just like any editor would"? Fortunately far from every editor seizes the opportunity to behave obnoxiously (I see you liked my phrase), though we all lose our cool sometimes. Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear, and it's not a place for playground score-settling either. You have ignored my request twice, so I've fixed the formatting error myself. If you mess with it again, or perpetrate any other childish retaliation, you'll be looking at a block. P. S., BullRangifer, I understand your frustration, but please don't talk about people's "genetic makeup". We're only interested in how they behave at Wikipedia, not their genes. Bishonen | talk 17:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@User:Bishonen Please do not post to my Talk page again.

@User:BullRangifer Please do not post to my Talk page again.

@User:NeilN Please do not post to my talk page again.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This change was not a summary of the body and the lede should be 4 paragraphs not five. After you were reverted you the term western medical acupuncture is sometimes used to the lede. That is not a summary of the body. You decided to restore the text to the lede. You added it to the body but some of the sources were not reliable and too many sources contradicted WP:OVERCITE. I removed the unnecessary references and improved the wording. I requested the page number in order to verify the text. QuackGuru (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand why you have brought this to my talk page. What is it you wish to discuss?DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:QuackGuru Please do not post to my Talk page again.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of a page number is not a reason to delete content. If the content cannot be verified given a reasonable time period then it could be removed although discussion is probably the best way to proceed at that point. I wouldn't bother edit warring content; edit warring is never a solutions seems to me. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Rapid fire edits are frequently done on the acupuncture page, and 30 minute time limits are longer than usual, actually. Some editors there want their diffs to "look reasonable" since they tagged it and gave a fair warning. That's gaming the system, of course. They try finding any material that is objectionable to them and nitpick something wrong with it, tag it, and remove it before anyone notices. Anytime you find a diff like you did here please send it my way for a project I'm working on. LesVegas (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the comment you sent me regarding the exclusion of Chinese scientists was intended for my project or not, but outrageous comments like that are actually perfect for it. So thank you very much! And stuff like where QuackGuru deleted the entire section you added on veterinary acupuncture with no discussion. Stuff like that is so easy to see through, it's laughable. It's obvious that he can't allow veterinary acupuncture to be on the page because placebos don't affect animals and it weakens the entire premise they all edit with to have information like that on the page. Their tactics are so silly. LesVegas (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ubiquity of the words "wild", "domestic", "feral", "tame", "trained" and the like are often confusing, therefore misused. It's a simple matter of semantics to laypersons, but their use in an encyclopedia is a different story. Now I've been around horses all of my life - they have been and still are a significant part of my life - and when someone tells me they have a wild horse, I know exactly what they're talking about. I bet you do, too. If a horse is turned out for a long period of time they have a natural tendency to revert back to the wild - it's their nature. Anyway, I read the following article and it pretty much validates my belief [15]. I'd like to get your thoughts on it. Atsme☯^Consult 00:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes - a nice easy one to start the day...NOT! ;-)

I take domestication to be cultivating of a population of organisms to accentuate traits that are desirable to the cultivator. This means that in my mind, breeding animals in zoos, etc. makes them domestic, because we are actually breeding for animals that survive and thrive in the (stressful) zoo habitat (our desirable trait). This would have been a driving force behind our early domestication of sheep, cattle, pigs. For example, white lions and tigers - we have bred them in zoos because they are unusual and money - but it is a form of domestication. Being tame relates to a tolerance of humans. If this is a wild animal, we have not selected for the trait and therefore it is not domestication. However, if we begin to select (cultivate) for the trait of tameness, the process of domestication has begun. So we will end up with tame lions in zoos and circuses. Animal training defines this as teaching animals specific responses to specific conditions or stimuli. I don't have a problem with this. We can train free-living animals, feral animals, domestic and non-domestic animals, tame and non-tame animals. I also have no problem with the wikipedia definition of Feral: A feral animal is an animal living in the wild but descended from domesticated individuals. But, I acknowledge this is perhaps where concerns occur. Here in Britain, we have a problem with an animal called the "wild boar" (it digs up gardens and may attack sheep and dogs). It is the same species as the domestic pig, Sus scrofa, but it became extinct hundreds of years ago. Relatively recently, people began farming wild boar imported from Europe for food. I imagine, they were then cultivated for various traits such as good taste and high production (and maybe tameness). This means they are domesticated. Some of these have escaped and now breeding. To my mind, these are "feral wild boar", but some would argue that because they were extant here many years ago, they are "re-introduced". Right - sharp intake of breath! WP defines wild as "Wildness, in its literal sense, is the quality of being wild or untamed." Seems sensible, but, what about the British wild boar. Are they "feral wild boar", or, because they might not have been tamed, are they perhaps "wild wild boar". Getting to your horses, I have often read sentences like "Przewalski's horse has never been domesticated and remains the only truly wild horse in the world today." and "Most "wild" horses today, such as the American Mustang or the Australian Brumby, are actually feral horses descended from domesticated animals that escaped and adapted to life in the wild." (both lifted from Przewalski's horse). Now, having re-read your question, it seems like you are talking about a domestic, tame, trained horse changing its behaviour when it has been let out. When you say "let out", fo you mean the animal becomes free-living, or is it simply in a large paddock with human interaction. If it is the former, I would say it is becoming feral. If it is the latter, it is a less defined process - the nearest I can think at the moment is "reverting to type". The term "Atavism" is used, but this is reverting to type over generations and in non-human animals, this generally is used for physiological traits. I will think more about this and let you know Hope this helps.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I hope you get a chance to read the article in Live Science, the link to which I included in my original post above. I stumbled across the Mustang article and of course my one and only very short edit was reverted by the article's owners who appeared to be tag-teaming me. I didn't realize you had also tried to edit there until I came here and read some of the discussion above. Small world. Atsme☯^Consult 01:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Atsme I have read the article but I'm afraid I really can't add any great insight to this. It appears the status of those horses in the US called mustangs is hotly contested and subject to legislation, politics, wildlife/ecology concerns, personal opinion, some rather ambiguous historical writings, etc. It appears to me that mustangs are a native, domesticated species that has been re-introduced and allowed to become feral. I believe some have been brought into captivity and are therefore very likely to be undergoing further domestication. I doubt very much this helps. At least you are not thinking about wolves. They were native to Great Britain and there are plans to reintroduce them. Not surprisingly, some people are rather concerned about this.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't resist putting in my tuppence worth because this interests me too. I think domestication a tameness is far from synonymous. Tame animals appear to exhibit an instinctive brain development that has stopped at the adolescent stage. Tame cats and dogs in the same household get on well with each other. I watched a TV program where a farmer is preserving an old breed of cattle. They have been 'domesticated' for hundreds of years but are still quite ferocious – I.e, not tame. Yet walk though a field of modern dairy cattle and the are the most docile creatures you can imagine. So, it depends on what characteristics are bred for. The exception to this rule, is I think - cats. With tongue-in-cheek I suggest: that as humans became farmers and attracted rodents to there settlements (which eat the grain) – then the cats that were smartest at infiltrating human habitats, had a greater survival chance in times of want, than their wild cousins. Thus, they learned how to domesticate man through their own natural selection. Think, any owner that has keep both may agree with this. It is not the cat that has become domesticated but instead learnt how to live symbiotically with humans. The side-by-side coexistence probably has increase the size of their hippocampus because they retain the ability to live both in a domestic human environment and remain self-reliant in their ancestral environment. They don't have to revert to type because they never left it behind.</tongue-in-cheek> Please don't confuse this with people that have hand-reared lion cubs etc. That is imprinting (psychology). As adults, those lions will attacked other humans without favor. I would say (without any references at all to back me up other than common sense and articles I've read but can't remember) : After a few generations "feral" critters ( through natural selection) become wild again. Why the change might you ask. It is down to natural selection yet again. For some animals to survive in the wild with out human protection from predators (and wild horses view humans as obvious predators, as we stand on our back feet – an predatory stance) the surviving ferals have to develop a mind set (not necessarily revert but perhaps develop anew), which in human term might be considered to be neurotic. In other word they don't take any risks (unless it involves mating). Got a feeling that DrChrissy is going to shoot me down in flame on this but that is my tuppence worth (for foreign readers ' tuppence' is a small coin of little value).--Aspro (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't; it's just not. [16] It might seem to have a faintly alarming ring but it's actually a 100% true, factually and logically sound statement. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 20:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The best place to raise such a concern would be at the user talk of the editor who made the comment. Imagine you're in their shoes, you make a true statement and someone wonders publically if it's racist. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 21:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is I do not believe it is true...DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, that's good, because that totally validates the AGF thing. What part do you doubt? It's pretty well-sourced AFAIK, and reflects cultural differences in study design: many Chinese researchers don't use sham, so they get positive results relative to no-acu, and a lot of scientists who want to control for needle placement and/or insertion tend to look askance at all of that. So, not racist, just something reflecting different assumptions and information, if that makes sense. Happy editing... love some of the stuff you've worked on, having more of a look soon. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 21:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse is a place for new editors to ask questions about the details and procedures for editing the encyclopedia, and where experienced editors try to answer those questions in a friendly, helpful fashion. It is not an administrative noticeboard nor is it an article talk page. It is not a battleground. I would be grateful if you would refrain from bringing various of Wikipedia's endless content disputes among experienced editors to the Teahouse. Thank you very much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told twice now here and here that giving notices over-rides requests not to use user Talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As requested I have reviewed the scope of the topic ban, and have now modified it accordingly to better fit with what supporters of it stated in the discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't like the changes, but I believe they more accurately reflect the consensus of the discussion. Reverting me won't change that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Beebelbrox. I don't see consensus in the AN/I discussion to limit this editor from all biomedical topics which would include animal biomedics. Such an extensive sanction is wildly unfair. An editor who has actually worked with Dr Chrissy in that area suggested that he has done some good work. By the way, this was a classic WP: POV RAILROAD which yes, I did work on. I should have posted further to explain that in the AN/I case but had pressing real life issues to deal with and by the time I came online the case was closed. I actually find it sad that the same old process triumphs again and again. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for that Littleolive oil. I also think the haste in which this closure was done is rather unfortunate - I did not even read the alternative action posted by SandyGeorgia which is something I would definately have considered. What was the reason for the haste in closing other than a request by vociferous involved editors? Could the closing admin not have asked the OP if this was OK given the extremely small time the ANI had been posted?DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may not believe this, but the close was done now as much to protect you as for any other reason. It seems clear that you have had some trouble when you edit in certain areas. It seems equally clear that you are unwilling or unable to acknowledge that fact. And you were arguing with nearly every single comment anyone made in support of the tban. While that is your choice, such badgering is generally considered very poor form and frankly it looked very foolish. Is this really such a disaster? Would you not rather work in other areas, areas where you seem to get along well and your contributions are appreciated?

Something we all need to accept when contributing to a project as vast and complicated as Wikipedia as that there is not a single user who is good at everything and well suited for every single task available. I've been there myself. Despite being a highly experienced anministrator and a long-term member of the functionaries team, the community soundly rejected my application to become a WP:CRAT a few years ago. And you know what? They were right. I'm not a good fit for that particular position of trust despite holding other highly advanced permisssions for half a decade. So I forgot about it and moved on. I suggest you do the same. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crissy, to answer your question here, I believe a reasonable assessment of the topic ban would include any medical topic, but not include general biology not related to medicine. For instance: rabbit is fine, morphology of rabbits would probably be fine - but you should be careful, medicine for rabbits would not be ok. There will always be gray areas; good advice is to shy away from them to avoid the appearance of a violation. IMO, I don't think anyone would fault you for editing in animal behavior, as long as it isn't medically related, just be careful you don't stray into that terrority. Make sure to read WP:TBAN, and understand that the ban includes content in unrelated articles (like discussion of medical treatments in hurricane), as well as talk pages. Anyway, I sincerely hope you do well moving forward. Good luck.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox Please make a clear statement regarding the scope of the sanctions you have imposed. There are various terms being thrown around such as "biological" which would completely prevent me from editing and WP would instantly lose an editor. Please make this clear statement. If you stand by your initial closing comments and notification to me, then please indicate this and I will work with those.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The original complaint by DrChrissy remains largely overlooked, and a sizeable proportion of comments (including my statements!) were not taken into consideration. I strongly disagree with Beeblebrox's hasty actions, and I urge them to reconsider it. Perhaps User:SlimVirgin may have some useful suggestions? I'm fine with a short and voluntary restraint for DrChrissy at this moment, but a broad and indefinite topic ban (as proposed by Beeblebrox) seems way overboard. -A1candidate 23:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to only mention above that you can take it to ANI to seek to have the ban lifted. WP:UNBAN mentions that you can also take this to a few other locations, such as ARBCOM.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beeblebrox I do not have any concern with this user continuing to edit animal related topics such as bile bear, chicken, Foie gras, etc. were they have previously been very active without obvious concerns. Would you view also this as outside of the topic ban? My understanding of biomedical is topics that pertain to human medicine and would not include vet med. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should likely include altmed vet med though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that depends on whether their contributions in this area were productive (seems to be the case so far) or disruptive (no clear evidence of that). -A1candidate 13:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James, I'm fairly certain biomed includes animals... they are biological beings and require medicine. Checking our articles, I see no mention either way, so I searched around. See, for example, see Foundation for Biomedical Research, New Jersey Association of Biomedical Research, avma, etc. Obviously, articles like chicken, bile bear and Foie gras are not medical articles, and therefore do not fall under "biomed".   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Indef is not forever. It is work productively in another topic area. Than request that the ban be lifted in 6 or 12 months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• IMHO, areas where SCIRS applies are not the same as MEDRS, and many altvetmed articles fall more under SCIRS - there is more discussion of alternative therapies in animals, as the placebo effect is not a factor the way it is for humans... Montanabw^(talk) 20:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've opened an AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#DrChrissy's topic ban. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that and thank you so very much. I also saw that an editor has left a post to Support a reduction in the scope of the ban, but the boldening of "support" might be misleading.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can ask that an uninvolved admin close it (someone not involved in any of these issues), and that person will, I hope, read the posts carefully, so that shouldn't be a problem. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a completely unrelated note, I notice you have a link at the bottom of your user page for other users to leave you a message, except that it doesn't lead here, it leads to a subpage that seems to have been previously deleted after other users did in fact mistankenly leave messages for you there. You may want to just remove that link, or replace it with one that would actually lead users to your talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr Chrissy, I thank you for your inserting a reference to the US-based science study of the bird-warning Birdsbesafe device, as published in Global Ecology and Conservation Journal earlier this year. (You mentioned in the Cats article in the predation section). You asked me to tell you when the Murdoch Univ. study in Applied Animal Behavior was finalized/published, and it is continuing to be listed on Elsevier as "in press", so I'm not sure. It's here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159115000222

The two studies received so much press in March that it was a viral topic internationally, which has been great for advancing bird protection. You can see the full list on birdsbesafe.com/pages/in-the-press We continue to do all we can here to protect birds and popularize our scientifically validated device (which has just received its U.S. patent). It's making a big difference in protecting birds from cats, more so every week now.

Neat that you went to Murdoch U. Small world. Peace, Nancy B., owner at Birdsbesafe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdwatchinggirl (talk • contribs) 19:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's really great! Now can you invent one for mice...I have two cats and they brought home their first ever mouse just a couple of days ago!DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this, not because I think it's not an improvement, but because your opponents might use that as evidence to get you blocked on the grounds of violating your topic ban. Please, it's best to avoid this area for a while and thread carefully in dangerous territory. Thanks! -A1candidate 21:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK Understood and thanks for that. The Tban is for biomedical articles. This does not include acupuncture or alt.med. This difference was clearly pointed out to the closing admin. Thanks for the thoughts.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I probably missed that. In that case, my dearest apologies for the misunderstanding. I've reverted myself. -A1candidate 22:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)To be clear, I certainly don't cosider myself your "opponent" and I doubt anyone else does either. And if they do they shouldn't. That being said, that is a blatant violation of the tban, as I am sure you were well aware when you did it. Minor edits are not exempt from a topic ban. You are to simply not edit such articles at all, period. In these cases it is common to see a little boundary testing right after the ban is imposed, and usually a little leeway os provided for a first offense, but you've used up your free pass with that edit. Please, just respect the ban and move on to other areas. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DrChrissy, I was in the process of posting something else in your defence, then before saving I saw this. I'm willing to defend you, but I can't do that unless you're doing what you can to help too. The ban was first and foremost about altmed. It was then extended to all human medicine, then to all biomedical, including nonhuman. We can argue against this last extension, but not the others, and certainly not the altmed, because that was the origin of the ban. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And i don't even know what you thought you were doing with this edit [17] but be aware as well that your topic ban applies in all namespaces, that is why it uses the word "pages" instead of articles. Now, we can't very well ban you from your own sandbox, but you will need to refrain from writing further about anything related to biomedical topics there, whih you clearly were trying to do in some way or another with that edit. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be one important exception though: They should at the very least be allowed to dispute the parameters and duration of the ban. If not here, then at least at WP:AN/I or another forum. Because the fact remains that there is no consensus for your closure, Beeblebrox. -A1candidate 22:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I obviously disagree, discussing of the terms of the ban itseldf is usually considered exempt. I'm not sure what's going on with that sandbox, but that's not what it appears to be. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK Sarah - I hear what you are saying. I saw that people supporting sanctions against me distinguished between biomedical and alt.med (and there is much supporting evidence that the two are hugely distinct on various WP articles.) I was editing on the basis of the closing comments of the closing admin which to me looks like a Tban on biomedicine, not alt.med. Thanks for your ongoing support.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I use my sandbox as a way of saving thoughts and useful sources. Am I really not allowed to do this anymore?DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I've been looking around for some clear definition of the term "biomedicine" and haven't really found it, but I was certainly under the impression that it is a pormanteu of "biological" and "medicine". So anything involving the medical treatment of biological (as opposed to psychological) issues would fall under the ban, whether they be western traditional, alternative, Chinese traditional, New Age, etc. As for the sandbox, as i tried to explain above you are still free to use it, but not to write about anything that would be subject to the topic ban. Really, the best thing you can do right now is to take any pages that could conceivably fall under the ban off watchlis and don't even look at them. But at the very least, no editing on the subject, anywhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you were under the "impression" and you're "looking around for some clear definition" for biomed and couldn't find it, you clearly didn't know what you were doing when closing at ANI. That's big bull if you'd ask me; And I'm not involved in any way nor did or do I endorse "a side", other than you probably meant good but fucked up neither-the-less. Sorry, but that's what happened so face it.--TMCk (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox. The diff you posted above goes to another part of my sandbox rather than where I think you intended. I am quite prepared to post the diff to the relevant edit/s and to explain why I was looking at particular pages, but this will mean I will identify biomedical sites which I believe I am not allowed to do. What would you have me do?DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is such nonsense, this is why ibans and topic bans make no sense at all. It just devolves into a game of "gotcha" by editors with grudges. And frankly, I've had the MEDRS crowd slap at me on the Animal-assisted therapy articles, which are primarily psychology, so is DrChrissy banned there too? What about articles like Docking (animal), where DrChrissy has been a major- and very useful - contributor? Those are, broadly construed, "medical." Where will this end? Serously! @Beeblebrox: you really DO need to open the thing back up. Montanabw^(talk) 23:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion on an uninvolved administrator's page, I've been advised that bringing it back to WP:AN/I might be a possible way forward. Someone also mentioned ArbCom on Beeblebrox's talk page, but I hope we don't have to go there yet. -A1candidate 23:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not an arbitration where a judgement is being interpreted. This is the result of an AN/I discussion in which editors as a community voted on a specific issue. At no time was the issue extended to include animal health/biomedical. As such it is outside the remit of the single closing admin to decide to include an extension sanction on an unvoted for issue. It takes courage to make a close in a contentious situation; It takes courage to reverse aspects of that close. I assume Beeblebrox has courage enough for both. I hope he/she will reconsider.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Like the closing admin, I was confused about the scope of "biomedical" and the additional " as broadly construed". I sought clarity in Wikipedia articles. I searched the following pages for the terms "acupuncture" and "alternative medicine".

Biomedicine

Biomedical = Medical research

Medical biology

and the Category:Biomedicine page

The terms did not appear on any of these pages.

Furthermore Acupuncture does not contain the term "biomedical"

It seems to me that previous editors have been extremely diligent to edit these pages such that alternative medicine articles can not, and should not, be construed as biomedical.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Tban that is being imposed now appears to be punitive with its extension to animals. Also, what about the religious and cultural aspects of acupuncture? And what exaclty is the basis for censoring this particular scholarly contributor from at least 90% of the topics in his area of expertise? Something just doesn't seem right. --Atsme^☎️📧 15:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please can I get some clarification here. I was just on the Mustang page where I was offering potential definitions of the term "wild". I was about to write about 2 examples where domestic animals had been released back into the non-captive environment and reverted to wild-type behaviours. However, I did not give these examples because they are Laboratory mice and Laboratory rats and therefore potentially "biomedical".DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would not apply under your topic ban. It would be a stretch for anyone to imply that. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that advice. Of course my concern is that because "biomedical articles including animals" is so broad, I might as well walk away from the project. I could come up with page after page that I would be excluded from because I edit many articles on laboratory animals, their behaviour, their physiology, their welfare and the ethics of laboratory animal use.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification please I would like to edit the article Nose-picking. However, this appears to be a biomedical article. There is a photo of a giraffe "picking" it's nose. There is evidence this behaviour is an oral stereotypy in captive giraffe. Stereotypy in humans is classified as a disease and is therefore biomedical (although there is a section on animals I would like to edit). Am I allowed to edit the nose-picking page?DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - only if you are picking your nose while editing it, but no scratching of the butt at the same time. Atsme^☎️📧 23:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reply to comment At school we were once having our physical education class taken by a really ferocious Army type as an introduction to army careers! I got caught picking my nose at which point he bellowed "YOU BOY - DON'T PICK YOUR NOSE, PICK YOUR ARSE - YOU GET BIGGER BALLS!"DrChrissy ^{[:[User talk:DrChrissy|(talk)]]} 23:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

^{Now DrC, I think your last comment might be considered biomedical. Atsme☎️📧 23:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)} [reply]

^{Yikes! I took it to mean the military type had condensed a meta-analytical systematic review of time-and-motion studies into one eloquant summary paraphrase - I had not considered the biological sampling aspect - my sincere apologies.DrChrissy (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)} [reply]

I going to point you again to WP:UNBAN. If you seriously have a question regarding your topic ban, I'd consider WP:ARCA. Though could take it to WP:ANI, WP:AN, or the other arbcom board listed there. I think you do meet the criteria to take it to ARCA. The close focused more on the wording than the intent it seems to me. The intent seemed to be to halt your editing on articles where MEDRS would apply and CAM/ALTMED articles. It was suggested that you should still be allowed to work on articles related to Animal behavior because they feel that you have offered productive edits in that area. They were trying to choose the proper wording, but their intent does seem to be clear. If you seriously have a question I would go there and ask. I would caution you to be very serious. I would also recommend against going to ANI. ARCA really seems to be the best choice under the circumstances. This again is based on my interpretation of WP:UNBAN. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Serialjoepsycho: I have to say that DrChrissy is right that someone undoubtably will scream GOTCHA! if he edits nose-picking or anything else that remotely could result in a WP:BEANS action. I know some of the people who have restrictions on infoboxes and there is a cabal of other editors just lurking to pounce because their real goal seems to be to make folks quit WP altogether. Montanabw^(talk) 21:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was offering my view, but note that I suggested that they take it to ARCA to have it clarified. But it seems it's been raised at ANI now.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To DrChrissy, I see you've already tested the limits of your topic ban. Now it's time to really disengage. That will be hard, but if you can't do that you're going to end up with a series of escalating blocks. I highly recommend that you unwatchlist all the pages related to your topic ban, as well as the talk pages of all the users you interacted with in this area. You need to walk away from this. If you have any doubt whether an edit might violate your topic ban, ask an admin before making the edit. It is definitely better to ask permission than forgiveness in this case.

To those questioning the legitimacy of the topic ban, I read the relevant ANI thread, and while there was the usual large (and fast) pile-on of alt-med opponents there were also a lot of neutral uninvolved users who came to the same conclusion that a topic ban was needed. And it was DrChrissy's own behavior in that thread that led to the early closure. If I had closed the thread myself I most likely would have made a similar closure. Please don't take this back to AN/I because it will boomerang, and if there is any serious doubt that the close covered alt-med articles like Acupuncture, I can remove that doubt by extending a second topic ban specifically for alt-med.

@DrChrissy: This might not seem fair to you, but that's the way things are, and there's not a way to go back and undo them. Take some time off, de-stress, and then if you still have a desire to contribute to a free encyclopedia, find an uncontroversial article that interests you and work on getting it to WP:GA standards. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. Would you really simply add alt.med to the tban despite only three people supporting such a ban?[18]DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please DrChrissy follow the advice to disengage from your detractors. You are wasting your time trying to fight. Some of your detractors have a need to be seen as being right. If you persist they will do you over, and do you over utterly. They will win the day no matter what. As Adjwilley says, that is just how it is. It is not about rationality or ethics. You are one of the few remaining genuine content contributors to Wikipedia. You are Wikipedia's principal contributor to articles on animal behaviour, some of which, like Pain in invertebrates, are tour de forces. You will never get centralised acknowledgement for that from "Wikipedia". Wikipedia maintains stability by periodically sacrificing valuable contributors like you. How else can those who cannot write a decent article be propitiated? I will be very sorry if you are no longer around. Please just disengage from the toxicity and accept the conditions. There's nothing weak about that, it's just accommodating the inevitable in a very imperfect world. It don't particularly matter. Your contributions do matter. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the time and consideration for that advice - much appreciated.DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DrChrissy, I agree wholeheartedly with Adjwilley and Epipelagic. I would have emailed you to state same but you apparently don't have your email feature engaged. Epipelagic's closing statement summed it up well. Sometimes we just have to walk away knowing we did what we could to make an article better, and are making the correct choices by following the advised course of action. I also consider you to be a valuable contributor. Atsme^☎️📧 22:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme and I both agree that you are being treated poorly here. ;-) I think they should have answered your question about nose-picking. Montanabw^(talk) 21:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is SNOT funny! I wanted the GREEN light to go ahead with a CLEAN NOSE and edit the article. In all seriousness, it is a genuine question because this is where the closing admin has taken me - questioning whether I am allowed to edit almost every article that I might wish to. Thanks for your continued support - much appreciated.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be nosey 👃 but WTH? There's no need for folks to act snotty toward you or get their noses all bent out of shape. It's not like you blew a rhinoplasty, for Pinocchio's sake! I'm not picking at you, DrC, but it looks like you're dealing with a booger of a mess here. Wish we could just blow it off. All this battleground activity would be best played at the Nasal Academy. Well, in an attempt to lighten things up I'll ask you this....Do you know why a nose can't be 12" long? (Drum roll, please............) Because then it would be a foot. --Atsme^📞📧 23:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK Atsme, it is time you and I had a serious conversation. If you ever, EVER come to my Talk page again with such crap jokes as that, you will be railroaded to ARBCOM quicker than my edits on ***puncture get reverted. ...and I think that has become the SI unit defining the nanosecond. You have been warned! DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But, but...DrC...I did it for the lil chilluns. --Atsme^📞📧 02:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't participate in the AN/I for now, it will only make things worse, trust me!! Can I remove your comments over there in the future (in case you make any rash statements), with your permission? It may be a good idea to drop a carefully worded comment later, but not now. Whatever you do, don't reply to Jytdog, please. -A1candidate 23:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do, with my permission.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If even your supporters feel the need to prevent you from particpating in a discussion of your own topic ban, you might want to consider the posssibility that maybe the topic ban is a good idea after all. The irony here is hard to miss. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too funny. You seem to need a TB yourself to keep your word.--TMCk (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Dr Chrissy was criticized for trying to rebut the comments against him on AN/I while thinking wrongly, apparently, that he should or could, its not surprising that he is being advised by another editor to stay away. It takes a while for an editor to figure out what works on the Notice Boards. Trying to explain doesn't work once people have made up their minds.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Its kind of like talking to the police without a lawyer. AlbinoFerret 00:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one took issue with DrChrissy trying to defend themselves. It was they way they were doing it. The defense in the previous ANI has been characterized as WP:IDHT. It's been suggested that the defense was a prime example of the very behavior that was at question in the request for a topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think DrChrissy understands that, if not at the previous ANI, then certainly at the current one. -A1candidate 01:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrChrissy, I closed the thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#DrChrissy's topic ban with a modification to the terms of the topic ban. You should now be able to continue editing in your area of expertise, editing articles about animal biology and behavior. My advice to you above still stands: you need to completely turn your back on this dispute and edit elsewhere. Also, since topic bans can sometimes be confusing, I wanted to make it clear that the topic ban applies to all pages including talk pages. Even making a passing comment about acupuncture or MEDRS on your own talk page can earn a block. And of course, if you have any questions about what may or may not violate the ban, please ask an admin first. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your topic ban as it is currently logged at WP:RESTRICT:

User:DrChrissy is topic banned from alternative medicine, broadly construed. To be clear, this includes alternative medicine for humans and animals, so Veterinary acupuncture does fall under the scope of this ban. Animal biology, behavior, health, and normal veterinary medicine does not fall under the scope of this ban so long as it does not intersect with alternative medicine. DrChrissy is also topic banned from human medical articles and WP:MEDRS related discussions.

Do note that this is not simply a ban on acupuncture but Alternative Medicine as a whole (people and animals). Not just MEDRS but any human medical articles. All broadly construed. But there is an exemption in your field of expertise. I wish you the best of luck and perhaps in 6 months you can get this lifted.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that Brian Josephson, a Cambridge physicist who won the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics, was once blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia? What a great way to drive away the smartest minds! This grossly unfair block was quickly overturned and eventually, the administrator who made the block was desysopped in a separate arbitration case "for his violations of the standards of conduct expected of administrators." The point I want to make is that if you're an outstanding scholar or academician, and you find yourself in trouble on Wikipedia, you're not alone! You can consider that a shining badge of honor.

Here's an off-topic question for you: I've previously worked on an experimental study involving the transplantation of a recellularized liver graft (derived from mesenchymal stem cells and hepatocytes/hepatic stem cells) into laboratory rats, and I learned that one possible method to figure out the degree of pain in rats (after transplantation) involves looking at several behaviorial patterns such as narrowed or squinting eyes. I'm still a little skeptical about the validity of such an approach though, and I would value the expert opinion of an animal behaviorist. Do you consider this a good way to measure the degree of pain in laboratory animals, and if not, what do you think might be a better option? Thanks for your time! And thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. -A1candidate 08:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A1. Thanks for your comments. I have not heard of using squinting eyes as an indicator of pain in a study before. It actually sounds quite intriguing. I know that Lab rats and mice do squint their eyes when they are stressed (which may involve pain)[19] (I know this looks like a low quality site, but it is in fact very comprehensive and based on Paul Flecknell's excellent work). It would be relatively easy to objectify by taking photos of the eyes and measuring the degree of squint (or a digital camera and software could do this automatically). I have not been able to access the full article you indicated so I don't know the details of how it was measured within that study. As with most studies involving the pain of animals, a range of measures should be taken because individuals respond in different ways - especially in prey species which have evolved to be stohical and hide signs of illness. I hope squinting was not used just as a quick and easy method of pain monitoring, but rather as one indicator in an array of measures. David Morton discusses that here.[20] One method of monitoring pain in laboratory animals that is hardly used and there is a good basis for it is self-selection of analgesic.[21] see also Zoopharmacognosy. I suspect the reason for this is the expense and difficulty of measuring consumption. Hope this helps.DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...on user talk pages re. ANI were inappropriate. Please read wp:CANVASS. Thanks.--TMCk (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following up from ANI, that was not advice. Advice was when I said you should disengage from users you've been in conflict with and un-watchlist their talk pages. This is me, very bluntly, telling you to stay away from QG and the E-cig dispute. It would be an easy thing to extend the topic ban to cover that as well if you persist in this, since practically everywhere QG edits is covered by some sort of discretionary sanctions. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both - the points have been noted.DrChrissy ^(talk) 08:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I appreciate the favor but there's no need to defend me. I will post a comment when I think it's necessary. -A1candidate 16:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A1, that was not a defense of you, it was a posting I made because another editor is not leaving appropriate edit summaries.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrChrissy, I have been watching old Humphrey Bogart movies lately (Casablanca is still the greatest ever) and my edit summary was intended as a humorous take on his style of expression. I see now where it might have been misinterpreted. Edit summaries cannot be undone but I'll try to think a little more carefully in future, especially when the circumstances are rather contentious. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boris. Thank you for your apology.DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lest we forget the classics....[22] --Atsme^📞📧 20:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DrChrissy, thanks for your assistance in the redevelopment of the Dog behavior page. I think that the article is now of a much higher standard with citations supporting its contents. I really needed to put an axe through all of the conjecture that had been copied and pasted from the "Wolfweb" website as if a dog should behave similar to a wolf. I understand that you probably still have concerns about the amount of work that I have included in comparing the dog to other wolf-like canids, and sadly most of the research has been focused on the wolf (and probably just the grey wolf as well, everybody forgets about the rest of the wolf clan). However, I believe that it is important to distinguish between the behaviour of the domestic dog, the feral dog (almost a different species!!), and the other wolf-like canids that make up that clan. This serves two purposes (1) it allows us to see what might be ancestral behaviour compared to later environmental behaviour (i.e. around humans), and (2) it will provide a landing zone for all of the wolf comparisons that are going to come in the future. Whether you and I are around or not, at some stage another editor is going to plonk something cited about wolves and dogs, and this provides the place for them to put that rather than tamper with the rest of the article. I am hopeful that in the future people might add something there about dog behaviour in comparison with Cape hunting dogs or coyotes, which might prove enlightening.

I have now completed the section on feral dogs, have archived most of the commentary on the Talk:Dog behavior page apart from the most recent two - as you and I created most of it in our planning of the redevelopment - and I am now returning to my core interest in Late Pleistocene Canidae and the search for the dog's yet-to-be identified ancestor. I shall drop in a relevant citation on the Dog behavior page from time to time as I come across them. Venturing into behaviour has been a new experience for me, and I believe a rewarding one. Regards, William Harris • talk • 09:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just popping by over here to note that the Mustang is a breed/type/landrace not a species/subspecies - it's more like the New Forest Pony than the Przewalski's horse. It's a horse, good old equus ferus caballus. You can train them for riding with no more difficulty than any of the semi-feral horses that traipse about the UK like the New Forests, the Exmoor Pony and so on. The problem is that there are just so many of them that population control is an issue but because they cannot be sold for slaughter, the BLM has their hands full trying to get rid of the excess numbers. See, for example, [23]. I hope this helps your understanding of the article. Montanabw^(talk) 18:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Montanabw. I do know that the mustang is a breed/type/landrace - you taught me that many moons ago and you are a good teacher. That is almost my point. At the moment, the mustang article is almost devoid of any facts which I as a general biologist would expect to see about why this animal is different from other breeds/type/landraces. Have a look at some of the cat and dog breed pages - most of them contain content which distinuishes that animal from closely related ones. It's almost as if the mustang page is almost struggling for notability other than the politcal issues. I will take this up at the talk page as it is more relevant there.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't get a lot of a "characteristics" section because there are multiple groups, the problem is that EXTENSIVE research is needed, as there is not just one "Mustang" (some wag noted there are about 25 groups that track individual animals, all with different criteria) but yet you can't really say there are multiple ones, either... and please, I have taken over a dozen horse breed articles to FAC, most in collaboration with others (a team of five of us got Thoroughbred there, you should also read Appaloosa) so trust me, I do know what I'm talking about and what the article needs. What it doesn't need is someone trying to add inaccurate crap to the lead that will just get removed later. Montanabw^(talk) 03:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Montana, I agree with DrChrissy, and you are certainly free to move this discussion to the article TP. I just wish you would investigate further into what we're saying (despite the minor differences) because discounting the biology as well as the inherent tendencies of horses (as a species) and lump summing it into breed specifics is not an accurate portrayal. With reference to the forest for the trees adage, this is a situation where we actually need to look at the individual trees to know what's in the forest. Keep in mind, there was a point in time when the very first horse was captured and trained. Horses are prey animals not predators and because of their fight-or-flight response they naturally tend to be more docile (or submissive) when in captivity and unable to flee. The same applies to pre-domestication. If the inherent nature of horses was to be wild like apex predators, we would not be having this conversation. Granted, non-genetic influences on gene expression (epigenetic) play a significant role which has resulted in crap we've never seen before (not to mention GMOs and remnants of insecticides that our ranch/farm animals ingest today), but without actual comparisons of mtDNA sequencing there is no way to determine anything for certain. We then must look to behavioral analysis (as far back to "then" as we can get right up to "now"). Not doing that has added to the confusion we see in the article. You are too good a writer who has written far too many FAs and GAs to not see what I'm talking about. Atsme^📞📧 19:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, read the above. Some of what you want to do is far beyond the scope of the Mustang article... and find the WP:RS for your claims before you go off into Fringe territory, please. Montanabw^(talk) 03:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a general biologist from the UK, I know next to nothing about mustangs. I would like to find out whether there are white mustangs and whether mustangs can be tamed. Where shall I look to find out about them? Wikipedia seems like a good start. Wrong - not even the most basic of material about the animal.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I mentioned about 20,000 times that mustangs can and are "tamed" (trained to ride and everything) on a regular basis. "White" is just a color, see, e.g. white (horse). I suppose a "white" mustang can occur occasionally as a genetic mutation, just like in any other horse breed, but nothing special in the mustang - if anything it's selected against because they stand out to predators. Montanabw^(talk) 03:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a good start so you'll have some insight to one aspect: [24]. For pure entertainment to see what Bobby's pick could do after only 120 days of training. The horse went from being herded into a pen of BLM mustangs straight off the range, to being penned and separated, to adoption by Bobby Kerr. 120 days from arriving at his place to a 1st place win and a big paycheck: [25]. Not science at this point, but a little "today" background. The science is also there for the picking and I have links to that as well. --Atsme^📞📧 21:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS - forgot to add this link to one of last remaining rare Spanish descendants (which need RS for proof verifiability): [26] Atsme added 21:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC) 2nd add 10:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

So why does the article not contain information about trainability that is not under a political sub-heading? The article needs this sort of information about the animal.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we ratcheted down the damn drama over a "wild" horse, maybe we could add some actual content to the article!!!! Montanabw^(talk) 03:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly DrChrissy, and what I've been trying to explain. The article lacks even the most minimal general knowledge information about the animal and has focused instead on the politics which is why I brought up UNDUE. The last link I provided delves more into the heritage and preservation of the few last remaining descendants. There is also a great deal of confusion as a result of more recent hybridization of certain populations by "strays" and "domestic turn-outs" which makes those herds far removed from the ancestral heritage of the first feral horses. All of this information belongs in the article because it further defines the biology, distinct populations and genetic variations. Atsme^📞📧 22:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC) added to whom addressed 10:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, if you could find GOOD quality sources instead of inaccurate ones, you'd be my hero. The problem is that you keep finding useless things that aren't relevant. WP:RS isn't just a good idea, it's policy. Montanabw^(talk) 03:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Chrissy, you mentioned white mustangs and I thought of this documentary about "Cloud" [27] Gandydancer (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gandydancer Thanks for this. A lovely looking horse. Some animal articles have a "Famous individuals" section; perhaps Cloud deserves one of these on Mustang or Pryor Mountain mustang.DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We routinely dump "famous individuals" laundry lists out of the breed articles, but Cloud may well be independently notable enough for his own article, after all, he had books written about him. I'd support someone who wanted to do that. Montanabw^(talk) 18:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud isn't "white" - he's some sort of light palomino or some related cream gene dilution, maybe a few other things. Montanabw^(talk) 03:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: I'm working on gathering RS - trying to squeeze it in between a few other obligations. Sorry if it appears I'm overindulging in the no deadline aspect of WP. ^{Well, maybe I am just a little.} Atsme^📞📧 10:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I may have a way forward on this, I'll post at Mustang talk. Montanabw^(talk) 18:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrC, discussing health issues related to HFCS, including the need or otherwise for MEDRS sources, violates the topic ban. You're not supposed to write about human health or human/animal alt med at all, whether sources, editors, articles, references, or anything else. If you violate the ban, the community won't want to lift it after six months, whereas if you respect it, there's a chance that they might, so it's very much in your interests not to violate it. If there's something about it that's unclear, let me know and I'll do what I can to explain. Best, Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah, thanks so much for taking the time to message me about this. When I sent the post, I was thinking that the ban applied only to discussion about the MEDRS, not the implementation of MEDRS, including the need or otherwise of MEDRS sources. After Jtydog's posting, I checked the closing statement of the AN/I and realised I was wrong and immediately struck my comments. If I am banned from even discussing MEDRS so much that "Even making a passing comment about acupuncture or MEDRS on your own talk page can earn a block" then simply explaining my action here in response to you is risking a block. I had not appreciated the implications of this sentence in the closing statement. I could be editing any article on animals on any matter whatsoever, and an editor might revert my edits simply stating "MEDRS source needed" and I would be completely unable to even discuss this. This sounds incredibly unfair and extremely restrictive. Perhaps I should take this back to the closing admin requesting that whilst I entirely accept I should make no comment on MEDRS itself or discuss it, I need the flexibility to be able discuss whether implementation is appropriate.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be okay for you to discuss MEDRS if someone else were to raise it on an animal page. If the scenario you mentioned above occurs, feel free to ping me and I will help out, or you can ping the closing admin. But otherwise you shouldn't discuss MEDRS at all, or any aspect of human health. It would not be a good idea to ask the closing admin to loosen the restriction, though of course you can ask for clarification. The point is that, if you want the restriction to be lifted in six months, the community (or admin) will want to see that you sat it out without violating it or regularly arguing about it. Otherwise it's likely to stay in place. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As always - thanks for the very sensible advice. Much appreciated.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, and I hope it has helped. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'd expect that even if someone else raised MEDRS on an animal page, DrChrissy would be unable to participate in the discussion without violating the topic ban. The topic ban includes WP:MEDRS related discussions with no exemptions for certain pages or if someone else brings it up first. Ca2james (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If someone were to say on an animal page DrC was already editing: "We need a MEDRS source for the claim that dogs have four legs," DrC should be able to respond that MEDRS doesn't apply to animals. Protracted discussion wouldn't be wise, but it wouldn't be fair if DrC were forced to accept inappropriate sourcing for an animal article just because he wasn't allowed to say no. Anyway, it's hypothethical, and DrC can ping people for help if it ever happens. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DrChrissy can certainly ping me in such cases. Glad to lend a hand. Montanabw^(talk) 07:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the clarifications and offers of help. I have already avoided editing on the subject I am not allowed to talk about. On an animal page, there was the opportunity to edit a very useful piece of material where a non-human animal was a useful model of psychology in another animal species I am not allowed to mention; it simply wasn't worth it. The result - the project suffers.DrChrissy ^(talk) 09:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's no point asking for trouble, is there? Speaking of which, it looks like the edit you made to your sandbox may violate your topic ban as it concerns references for the effectiveness of acupuncture treatments. Pinging the topic ban closing admin Adjwilley for clarification. This might also be a good time to clarify the hypothetical situation in this section (whether discussing MEDRS on an animal page, even to say it doesn't apply to that page, would be a violation of the topic ban). Ca2james (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can editing a sandbox violate a topic ban? A sandbox is a 'sandbox' by definition. Wikipedia:About the Sandbox--Aspro (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ca2james This is absolutely staggering! I copied the table from my own sandbox into another place into my own sandbox. The material already existed before the topic ban. My intention is to develop a table on the sensory characteristics of domestic animals - hence the new column headings. Did you see those? I was called away before I could develop the table further. I think that was 4 hours ago. I have not made any attempt to discuss material in this edit or elsewhere. I was using it as a template. I think you are WP:hounding me.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to see you blocked for violating your topic ban, and editing your sandbox is a grey area with respect to that ban. If you don't want me posting here, please ask me to stop instead of accusing me of hounding for pointing out possible violations of your topic ban. Ca2james (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you really don't want to see me blocked, why have you brought the subject up? Why not take my sandbox off your watchlist and don't worry about a low-level editor starting a new \nd informative page about the sensory characteristics of domestic animals.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to clarify your topic ban so that you don't violate it and get blocked. If you don't want people pointing out that you might be violating your topic ban, don't make edits that might violate your topic ban. Ca2james (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DrChrissy, seriously -- if you want to get out from under the topic ban you need to convince people that you're willing to keep inside the lines. That means staying away from anything having to do with alt med. Period. No ifs, ands or buts. Not on your talk page, not in your sandbox, not anywhere else on the interwebs that has "en.wikipedia.org" in the URL. By doing things like this you're only giving ammunition to your opponents. It doesn't matter if you think you're in the right or even if you are in the right -- you need to change people's perceptions and this isn't the way to do it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

1. There is no "grey area" here. A topic ban applies to all of Wikipedia, no exceptions. If the subject of the topic ban necessitates involvement from the involved party, such as in them being required to answer questions in an ArbCom case, that's a different matter and all parties understand.
2. I think we should AGF and accept DrChrissy's explanation. I don't see any attempt to deal with acupuncture. They just copied an existing template and haven't finished modifying it yet. That's not a violation. Now they should get back to removing every trace from that template which can be misunderstood.

BullRangifer (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DrChrissy, I was asked to comment above, but it looks like several other users have already given you all the advice you need. My advice is to listen. Also, to clarify the above, it is not a blockable offense to mention MEDRS while discussing the terms of your topic ban with an administrator. Otherwise though, I think Short Brigade Harvester Boris is 100% right. In the (unlikely) hypothetical situation where somebody demands an MEDRS source for a mundane animal claim like dogs having four legs, I think your best bet would be to decline to reply to such a silly comment. Second best might be to say "I can't comment on that, but perhaps User:Montanabw can." Be careful of WP:Canvass though; if you are frequently pinging others to take your side in disputes it can get you back into hot water. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your AGF. @User:Adjwilley, or another admin, I would like to further show good faith by removing all banned subject matter totally from my sandbox so I do not make this mistake again. However, this will of course mean me editing the banned subject. I will wait for advice before I do this.DrChrissy ^(talk) 08:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing topical content from pages in your userspace is perfectly acceptable while topic banned. Just try not to add to them or modify them in a way that still addresses the topic. You can definitely go ahead and remove references from your sandbox if you'd like. Good luck!   — Jess· Δ♥ 09:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.DrChrissy ^(talk) 09:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Animal biology, behavior, health, and normal veterinary medicine does not fall under the scope of this ban so long as it does not intersect with alternative medicine. This is written into your topic ban. It's very clear and it is an exemption to your MEDRS topic ban. It probably wouldn't be a good idea for anyone to attempt to game your sanctions in an attempt to cause trouble for you. If they say you need a MEDRS source to show a dog has four legs (which would be ridiculous), dog biology falls under animal biology and is exempt from your topic ban.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. There are other examples which have ocurred in the past - I think a well known medical editor insisted on MEDRS for non-human related subject matter on the Foie gras article. However, these examples are from the past and I am totally clear that in the future, I will ping an admin if I am unsure about things.DrChrissy ^(talk) 09:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just letting you know that I removed an extra bracket from your category listing on your user page because it was showing up at the bottom.[28] And btw, "Mainstream Feather Ruffler" would make a great user name! :) Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was thinking it would be a good name for a rock band. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both - Nice idea! I'll register the domain name later! ;-) DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have a few, then perhaps you can forget about talk page stalkers. AlbinoFerret 01:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhhhhh....Tastes good - Thanks!DrChrissy ^(talk) 08:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary note It was stated here [29] that "...it is not a blockable offense to mention MEDRS while discussing the terms of your topic ban with an administrator."...I am assuming this also applies to discussing the terms of the ban relating to alt.med with administrators. I hope this is not a violation - if it is, I immediately apologise.

I am confused about the terms of my topic ban. Several admins have made the point that my sandbox is to be considered as any other page on wikipedia and that I should not make edits wrt topic-banned material on there. For example, User: Ca2james stated "The topic ban includes WP:MEDRS related discussions with no exemptions for certain pages or if someone else brings it up first." and "...it looks like the edit you made to your sandbox may violate your topic ban as it concerns references for the effectiveness of acupuncture treatments". User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris stated "That means staying away from anything having to do with alt med. Period. No ifs, ands or buts. Not on your talk page, not in your sandbox, not anywhere else on the interwebs that has "en.wikipedia.org" in the URL." This all sounds very black-and-white. Indeed User:BullRangifer stated "There is no "grey area" here. A topic ban applies to all of Wikipedia, no exceptions." However, User:Jess wrote "Removing topical content from pages in your userspace is perfectly acceptable while topic banned" and User:BullRangifer encouraged me to edit topic-banned material in my sandbox by stating "Now they should get back to removing every trace from that template which can be misunderstood." This is clearly conflicting and contradictory advice.

I have 2 questions.

If my sandbox is considered the exact equivalent of all other pages, why am I being told it is permissible (encouraged) to remove topic-banned material from this? Surely if there is equivalance among the pages, this means I am also allowed to remove/edit such material from all pages, not just my sandbox.

Where are the policy/guidelines that state sandboxes are equivalent to all other pages with respect to a topic ban. I have checked WP:Topic ban but all this states is that "...also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages" with no mention of sandboxes.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Context is everything here. My comment referred to the situation then occurring at your sandbox, not anywhere else: "I don't see any attempt to deal with acupuncture. They just copied an existing template and haven't finished modifying it yet. That's not a violation. Now they should get back to removing every trace from that template which can be misunderstood." Just finish the job you were doing. You just needed the template for another use unrelated to your topic ban. That's fine. If you had finished your edits before saving, no one would have known the difference. Otherwise you would be wise to not edit the subject in any manner anywhere else. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Winner of The Prickness
	You had a good run in The Dirty, won The Prickness, and seem to be running handily in The Prickmont. The trupial on the left shows us how easy it is to avoid the pricks. Disclaimer: Intended as humor but may be too prickly for some. Atsme📞📧 11:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hee hee. Thanks - made me smile on what is a pretty miserable day in my area of the world (Somerset, UK)DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way User:Atsme, I had a passing thought the other day to rename the Pricks the "WikiBorg". I'm not sure if you are familiar with these Star Trek characters but they share several characteristics with the Pricks. Their main aim is to achieve perfection and they do this by "assimilating" all non-Borg species they encounter. This means that ALL (Wiki)Borgs think in the same way. They are all inter-connected by a subspace (Wiki)network so once one (Wiki)Borg knows something, they ALL do! Their favourite saying is "Resistance is Futile". They act as drones in a "hive mind" called the Collective, or "the hive" (good reference to stinging Pricks!). There is a single Borg Queen who is the focal point within the Borg collective consciousness - I am now opening bets on which WikiBorg is the WikiBorg Queen! hee hee.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Laterality page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BURDEN is on the person restoring the content to provide valid sourcing. The Daily Mail is unacceptable as sourcing for pretty much anything. And you yourself admit that you are using it to bolster even less reliable gossip. Wikipedia does not work that way. Revert yourself until you have sourcing that is at least marginally acceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the support for your argument that the Daily Mail is unacceptable? I have certainly not said I will be using "it to bolster even less reliable gossip". There is a statement about the number of dogs killed in China with an in-line reference (hardly "gossip"). An editor has tagged it with "Better source needed". I have added an additional source (the Daily Mail article), however, because I am unfamiliar with the quality of the first article, I do not know whether the Daily Mail is better or not - it is simply additional, supportive material.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr Chrissy. Here are a few more references. [30][31][32][33][34]. AlbinoFerret 17:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much User:AlbinoFerret for these. Looks like I am bumping into old friends over at Dog meat. Rather an unusual place for them to pop up....DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well finding sources is something I like to do, I belong to Wikiproject Citation cleanup. When I read you were trying to fix a request for a better source I thought I would lend a hand. AlbinoFerret 19:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the burden "lies with the editor who adds or restores material," But if the only issue is if the Daily mail is a RS, it all depends on what is being sourced. Here, a ^{[better source needed]} or [[Unreliable source}} tag is superior to blanking, as the material isn't actually all that incorrect. Montanabw^(talk) 23:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Montanabw. Whenever I find a source that seems a bit dodgy, I almost always use ^{[better source needed]} rather than delete the statement - this seems much more collegiate and leaves the material there for others to find a better source. Unfortunately, the issue at this article might be more complex than simply whether the Daily Mail is RS source - an old friend has joined me at the article and I suspect a bit of goading is going on.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't fall for the bait, eh? Given that the current article appears to use other sources to verify most of the stuff, not worth the fight. The Morocco bit probably does need more than the DM due to the high degree of controversy. A high controversy situation is one of those things like the downfall of John Edwards - just because the National Enquirer broke the story and got it right (and got nominated for a Pulitzer Prize to boot!) still didn't mean they were an RS until the mainstream media agreed. :-P Tabloids get no respect! Montanabw^(talk) 03:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source for Morocco [35] AlbinoFerret 04:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

addressing poor sources

Given that the article is already of substantial length and there is great evidence that the article is being used to push advocacy and that highly reliable academic sources abound for potential use, I have no compunction against immediate removal of any and all questionably sourced content to help ensure the integrity of the project. Implications made on the basis of twits by comedians in tabloid scandal sheets for example should be scoured clean without even a slight hesitation.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I guess we just adopt different styles to our editing.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are trying to help. But the page you are on holds danger for you. AlbinoFerret 13:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughts. I will tread carefully.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did I ever tell you how great you tweak? I'm impressed. I was going to respond to your Borg post but I can't remember where I saw it, so I'll post my response here. I can't help you with the Borgs, and I have no clue who fits into what position. What I do know is that when the going gets tough, we tell Scotty to beam up Captain Kirk.Atsme^📞📧 20:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Glad you like my method of tweaking - nothing better than a good ol' tweak in the right place ;-) The Borg posting can be found here if you want to see that bit of silliness again.[36]DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - there's no reason for you to have any concern over citing EWS. The information on the site comes right out of the documentaries which were broadcast internationally, and on PBS in the US. They were also reviewed by Booklist (American Library Association) and got high ratings. In fact, America's Crayfish: Crawling in Troubled Waters was Best Of Editors’ Choice 2000 — Jan 2001 Issue — BOOKLIST. They were produced in cooperation with USF&WS and numerous other state and federal resource agencies, were/still are available in university libraries, were used in ichthyology classes, are still being distributed by several state resource agencies, were used in educational kiosks in zoo aquariums, and as teaching aids for volunteers at the Aquarium of the Americas and also the Tennessee Aquarium, and are what most of the new research was built on. For example, U of Michigan cites the paddlefish documentary, [37], and the late Kim Graham who was our board president [38] h-index >50, and L.A. Helfrich (Virginia Tech) a former board member with h-index >19. While they won't pass the scrutiny of MEDRS, the information easily passes the scrutiny of RS. Didn't want you to think you were citing podunk sources. Atsme^📞📧 00:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for all the background - the videos are obviously well received elsewhere. The site/videos are clearly written by experts and I had no hesitation using them. Good work!DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DrChrissy. Over at WP:RDS#Elephant seals and rape you have added a heavily indented (six levels) response. On the reference desks we follow the indentation and threading practices described at Help:Using talk pages#Indentation. Would you please edit you response and indent it only once if it is intended as a response to the original question (which I assume it to be) or twice if it is intended as a response to my immediately preceding response? Thanks. -- ToE 23:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that - I got caught in an edit conflict and got confused about the level of indentation.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis cool. Edit conflicts are a real pain. Since you experienced one when you did, timing suggests is was with my 23:03 response, and that your post was thus not a response to it. I was just checking in case there was something unclear in the FES quotation I provided that I needed to respond to, but all seems clear. Cheers! -- ToE 23:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the trouble to write. Please take a moment to read about the use of upper case. Show me where it says that ***one*** word in upper case is considered shouting. Wikipedia's various resources to highlight something do not work in edit summaries - you cannot use underline, or bold or italic, so there is not much else taht can be used. If you know of any useful solutions, please do share. Secondly, I took a lot of time to analyse the article and trace back the origin of that section anss provided a meaningful summary. You on the other hand, merely reverted on tha basis of the lede covering the whole article. Yes, the lead by all means must cover all key aspects, but it cannot posssibly cover the article sentence for sentence. Anyone can easily find in all GAs plenty of bits of information not included in the lede. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User talk:Rui Gabriel Correia I am not exactly sure why moved this discussion from tour Talk page to mine, however, I have replied at your Talk page.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I am not exactly sure why you find it so odd that I would respond here. In all my time here I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of those I have interacted with in any of the Wikipedias where I contribute reply on the page of the person who left them a message. Sometimes you see users with a banner saying "If I write on your page, please reply ......." indicating where to reply. And by the way, I replied, I did not move the discussion. Moving a discussion is something entirely different. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK - fair enough.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From discussion here, that is definitely it. Thank you so much! I've been curious about this call for a long time. Reflectionsinglass (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No probs - glad I helped solve the mystery.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrChrissy. Just a curiosity of mine. You, as a seasoned editor on animal topics, what is your opinion of Captivity (animal) (no sources presented for the definitions), where livestock and pets are included under the umbrella of animals living in captivity? Captivity to me implies something forced, beyong the control/ will of the creatures on which it imposed. Yet pets and most farm animals are not 'captive' in the sense of being held against their will. In fact most will struggle to survive on their own in the wild. Shouldn't the concept of "captivity" be reserved for animals that would if given the chance return to the wild, such as lions, birds, etc? In terms of terminology, is this how it is treated in the scientific literature on the topic? Thanks, regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WoW - this article has so many problems. I have not seen it before. I have hardly gone past the opening paragraph without recoiling at multiple times. First, what does the title mean? What are the aims of the article? Second, the opening sentence states "Animals that live under human care are in captivity". I have 2 cats. I live with my door open almost 100% of my waking hours and it has a cat flap which is never locked even when I am asleep. My cats live under my care, but I would not for one second think of them as "captive". Humans do many things such that non-human animals are under their care, but the non-human animals are not captive. I was watching a TV programme last night where badgers' burrows were undermining a school. An artificial badger sett was built and the badgers moved to this. The badgers are now living under the care of humans but they are not captive. Plenty of people put out food for wild birds. The birds are living under the care of humans, but they are not captive in any way that makes sense to me. I think this article needs to sort out its aims, and then a useful definition can be given. Until then, it could almost be deleted! Hope this helps.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it certainly helps, much appreciated. I thought I was seeing things when I read the intro. I agree 100%. I will flag it and see when I can dedicate some time to it. It is not the only one, List of domesticated animals also uses the term "captivity" to refer to cats, cattle, etc, being "[degree of] common in captivity" or "[degree of] common in the wild". Even silkworms .... Thanks, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that certainly went over like a lead balloon, didn't it? It is becoming more and more obvious that WP is at a stage similar to that that all large organizations reach, be they national governments, corporations, etc., and even religious organizations such as the Catholic church (thinking of that sweetie Pope Francis here). A few like-minded individuals of a certain psychological makeup eventually come into control and from then on any fresh thinking outside of the prevalent mindset is viewed with suspect. Even for me to post on your page throws me into the group of editors that must be suspect of being "woo" defenders, and such...not that I was not already there. :) I don't know how to deal with it. It's sorta like a WP underground for now... Gandydancer (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. I think some people have their own pre-conceived ideas about the suitability of some newspapers which they struggle to (can not) explain. However, as long as there are enough of them with the same thought, this is going to be the consensus and they can go along slashing at articles knowing they have a suitable number of supporters to protect them. It strikes me that people are making decisions at the RS Talk page but then imposing them on literally any article in the project. However, my understanding is that the nature of a RS should be discussed at the Talk page of the article - this means it involves the editors most involved and knowledgeable about the subject. If there have been discussions by the sages at the RS talk page, this is fine, but editors need some clear and easily accessible direction and advice from this. I thought the table-approach would help that problem. Should I take this to a RfC do you think?

On the subject of being a "woo" defender - I actually do not consider myself as that. I believe very firmly in presenting a balanced article. This sometimes means I actually place RS edits which contradict my own beliefs - I am a hard-nosed scientist, but I do not believe in censorship of alternative ideas and views.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the Mail goes, IMO the people at RS have been around the block enough times to give an accurate estimation of most news sources, including the Mail. I'm not from the UK so I (at one time) did not have any idea what a piece of crap it was and wish I would have known that years ago. One incident comes to mind about a piece (of crap) they did on Occupy Wall Street when I was working on that article. Based on what I know now, I would have deleted it. As for an RfC on it, I think it's a good idea--if you can stand it... As for woo, didn't you suggest that acupuncture has been used with some benefit? Clearly you are promoting W-woo and need instructions in the scientific method...or whatever... Gandydancer (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gandy, I am not really sure why you felt the need to write that I need instructions in scientific method. I actually find that rather insulting given my real world occupation. In which aspect of scientific investigation do you suggest I seek instruction? Are you able/prepared to offer that instruction for me? I can not comment in detail about your post due to a topic ban I am under, but editors can post a source that indicates an action has a benefit without actually promoting it ...the post may simply be redressing an editing imbalance.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I am so sorry... I totally forgot that sarcasm so often does not work here. From what I've read from your posts you are an intelligent and informed editor! I don't follow your posts, but from what I'v seen you are an excellent editor. Gandydancer (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing that up, and apologies for misunderstanding you.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I went to push one of your meat collages live to the Carnism article, but I'm a bit concerned about their copyright status. You listed these as "own works". Did you take each of the individual pictures? If they were grabbed from the Wikimedia Commons, there should be attribution given to each of the creators of the works/the uploaders. Could you please clarify where each picture came from? Thanks. ~ Rob^Talk 22:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:BU Rob13. I got each of the images from Wikicommons. I thought this meant that creators gave up the rights to their work and that if I created a collage containing their work, this use of their work was my ownership. I am an amateur photographer myself and very mindful of correct attribution, so if I am wrong, please let me know.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the images. All works on Wikimedia Commons have a license no more restrictive than requiring attribution and share alike, meaning that you must attribute to the original authors and offer your new work under the same or similar license (no more or less restrictive). Some images may not require attribution, share alike, or both, but most do. For instance, public domain images do not necessarily require either. To determine what license the images you grabbed were offered under, check the "Licensing" information underneath the image on Wikimedia. As an example, see File:Steven Boyer.jpg, which I created as a derivative work a while back, and File:Steven Boyer, May 2015.jpg, which was the original work I grabbed from Flickr after discussing licensing with the photographer. On the original image under Licensing, you can see the requirements to attribute and share alike. On my derivative work, you can see how I did that: I acknowledged the source as Wikimedia Commons with a link, and then noted that I created the derivative work while attributing the original to the author. Let me know if you have any questions on that, although my knowledge is not as comprehensive as more experienced editors in this area. ~ Rob^Talk 15:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Which collage are you thinking of using?DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking File:Meats.jpg, as I believe there's consensus at the talk page to include a picture of different cuts of meat, at the very least. I suspect that we may update to another collage at some point, but I think that's the best image that meets the current consensus to include a collage of meats. ~ Rob^Talk 17:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to do this would be to create a multi-image of the original files. That would give correct attribution. Should I do this and delete my collages from wikicommons (they were only meant as drafts anyway)?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, however you think is best. I don't do much work with images, so I'm sure you know more about how to do it properly than me. Multi-images are above my pay grade. ~ Rob^Talk 18:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that with certain exceptions, a user has the right to remove posts from his talk page, and that reverting that removal can be construed as WP:Disruptive editing and can lead to being blocked. BMK (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is true. Now, I don't think they restored identical material, but three of those messages in a row, all saying pretty much the same thing, that's not OK. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• User talk:Drmies please can you clarify what was not OK. Was I wrong to post a similar message 3 times, or do you consider the actions of BMK to be inappropriate?DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good article on horse stereotypies, putting here in case you want to use it on stereotypy (non-human) or something: [39] Montanabw^(talk) 22:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this. Have you ever met the scientist - Sebastian McBride?DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Montana is a long way from anywhere, I seldom get to meet research scientists unless they are at Montana State... ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 04:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E.g.: [40]. Try a Google search of "Cecil alpha male" and you'll see what I mean. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Lion societies are complex. For Cecil to have been an alpha male, he would have had to have unrestricted access to resources. I have no idea whether there were other males in the pride, so I can not say whether access to food, mates, etc. was unrestricted. I have no doubt that his being an "alpha male" has been reported - it is the sort of "buzz-word" in animal behaviour that reporters like to use. It has more sensationalist impact if the animal has a very special attribute. However, this may not be the truth. I suspect this is one of those cases where it is verifiable, but is it the truth?DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's perfectly verifiable from non-expert sources like The Guardian. I suppose that WildCRU would be the people to ask. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they would be the people to ask. I'm unaware of the detail of their studies but they may not have the data to support this. I have had lots of dealings with the media in my job as an animal behaviouralist and I'm afraid that my experience of the media, even very reputable sources like the Guardian, is that they are remarkably reluctant to report accuracy rather than sound-bites.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too true, lots of ignorance on scientific concepts. I have seen what idiots the media are with horse topics... calling young female horses "filly colts" or saying "pull on the reigns.." ARRGGH! (ripping hair out, sorry, had to vent). Montanabw^(talk) 00:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vent away! DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, dominant male has as pretty clear re-direct. Is a link still inappropriate? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are several questions here. The first is whether "alpha male" is verifiable or not. Yes it is, because it was written - but, I strongly suspect the "alpha male" was added post-interview by the reporter not realising it has a specific meaning in ethology. For Cecil to have been an "alpha male", there must have been other males in the pride. Were there? I don't know. The next question is whether he was the "dominant" male. Dominance hierarchies amongst social animals take hours of careful observation to work out. Has this work been conducted and published? Moreover, lions usually have a harem system and ethologists tend to think of a dominance hierarchy within the females, but do not include the (often solitary) male. If there are multiple males, it will be possible to work out dominance amongst the males, but again, I have no idea if there were multiple males. Why do you wish to add such a label?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I wish to add any label. I didn't add dominant male. But I was trying get your thoughts on it appropriateness, given that it wikilinks to Alpha (ethology). It would be a separate question to actually link it. Is that term wrong? Is the wiki re-direct wrong? Or perhaps both? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that both terms could be wrong. If he was the only male than he could not have been an "alpha male". If he was the only male in a harem system, he would not usually be considered as "dominant". I have only seen reports that indicate he was the only male. To my mind, the link is wrong. "Dominance" covers a wide range of animal society organisations such as despot, linear, triangular, etc. "Alpha male" usually covers when there is one dominant male and other subordinate males in the group. It is arguable whether there should be a link, but in my view there should not.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. I'll probably hang onto this notion like a dog with a bone. Thanks again, for now. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, the problem is that he could be either, or neither, but this would have to determined by science - not simply a reporter's throw-away remark which is almost certainly intended to inflate the importance of Cecil (as if that was really needed!). Happy to discuss when you wish.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What?! You mean it's not really simple?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A dominant animal is one which gets priority of access to resources (mates, food, water, etc). An alpha male is the dominant male within a group which contains multiple males. simplzzzzz.  ;-) DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shucks. And I thought it was just down to box-office receipts. I'd better tell Mufasa. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete an incomplete citation. They are allowed, just not ideal. Anyone can fix or improve them, including yourself. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know I can fix them! Have a look at how many references I have fixed on that article over the last few days! I am tired of doing this. It is very sloppy editing for editors to be using the wrong reference format and even worse still, not attributing information correctly. This creates work for others. If people leave out occasional details fine - but there seems to be an attitude on the article that simply slapping a url on is sufficient. It is not good editing at all.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, I suggest that you reconsider pushing yet further into conflict. You will do as you will, of course. But it is not a wise course of action. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you have asked me not to post to your Talk page, it's a bit rude to post to mine with such a confrontational posting.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How did it work out for you the last time you pursued conflict - when you entered the acupuncture fray following our disagreement at Foie gras? Is WP a happier place for you? You will do as you will, but in my view the course you are pursuing is not wise - it is not good for WP, and most of all it is not good for you. I'll not respond further. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I think not responding is a wise move. Your posts here are sounding remarkably like a threat.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no threat. Pursuing conflict across WP is just generally unwise, and you have your own experience to rely on for that. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And likewise you have your own experience regarding incivility. You wouldn't be trying to harrass me for bring that AN/I upon you would you?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You just cannot accept my apology from that and move on, can you? I am sorry about that. If you want to hold onto your anger and let it drive you into more and more conflict, that is what you will do. Good luck to you, drchrissy.Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I too am very sorry that you seem to have a complete inability to see others' points of view.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are apologizing for. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were not going to respond anymore?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done then. I do hope you reconsider. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well if I knew what I was considering in the first place, I could perhaps contemplate re-considering.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are well aware that you just started editing Glyphosate which you never edited before yesterday per this and this and jumped right into a content dispute. You are of course free to edit where ever you like, but pursuing conflict is not wise. Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am interpreting your repeated postings here about the same subject as WP:Harrassment. Please desist. Thank-you.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that your interpretation is poorly supported by evidence, and that attempting to goad Jytdog with spurious accusations of harrassment reflects far more poorly on you than it does on him. Though I am sure that as long as you don't stalk Jytdog's contributions again in the future, neither he nor I will feel any impulse to ask you not to do so on your talk page, or to caution you that such behavior is likely to lead to (additional) restrictions or sanctions.

While I cannot speak for Jytdog, I strongly suspect that he (and I) will refrain from any further posts to your talk page as long as you refrain from further unsubstantiated accusations of misconduct against other editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully they will hold true to their word and stay away from this talk page. This is clearly harassment and should not be tolerated here. Gandydancer (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:TenOfAllTrades - Jtydog came here to my talk page and started unfounded accusations of my searching for conflict. If someone comes to my Talkpage and starts making such wild accusations, I will defend myself. If they continue unfounded accusations, then it is perfectly reasonable for me to interpret their accusations as harassment. I take your joining in on this thread to be contributing to this harassment. Please desist. Thank you.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with DrC and Gandy. If one wants to bring a conduct issue to a user's attention, a single, specific, polite posting is sufficient. The above exchange was inappropriate, and I suggest the Doctor remove further posts on the same topic per WP:REMOVED. FourViolas (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what program do you use to scan? You are aware that "major cause of shark population population decline worldwide" is not advocacy, funding, or POV-advancement for PETA?

SundayRequiem (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is a discussion about content. I hope you don't mind, but I am moving it to the articles talk page.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article was called up at WP:MED as being problematic/promotional and I agree. This is within your area of expertise, I believe. Might you be willing to fix it? Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'll have a look at it.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits, Dr. C. I did emit what Wooster would call a hollow l. when I saw it being called promotional. Because I started it after spending $35 or so on a kit and finding it completely ineffective for our poor dog's thunderstorm anxiety. (Some version or other is sold at all the major pet store chains in the US). Tried to do the best I could with the sources at hand, thinking more and better studies would come along later. It does show up (often with a "may...") at quite a few US veterinary .edu sites. [41] My guess is that they feel confident it does no harm. Nice improvement job, regards, Novickas (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I felt the most important thing was to establish that there is a natural substance with this name. I have found several secondary sources stating this, however, I have yet to find the original article that first described the naturally occurring hormone. After this, I have tried to establish the efficacy of synthetic DAB giving it a balanced coverage. The article is still very much a work in progress so feel free to contribute.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was a great idea :) Maybe this is the seminal paper? [42]? Cited so often. But I don't have full access. There is some sort of resource exchange service on WP where you can request someone to provide a document: Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange.

By the way, I see that your book refs don't have ISBNs - this suggests to me that you are filling out the cite info manually, and so may not be aware of this wonderful Wikipedia book ref generation tool. [43] Novickas (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Here is a 2010 review of the studies done from 1998 to 2008 [44]. Novickas (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC) NM, didn't notice it's already in there. Novickas (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Novickas. Glad you liked the Dalmation image - it's rather cute, but at the same time I think it gets the message across. Thanks for the [45] reference. I have seen this before, but unfortunately, at the moment I can only access the abstract and this does not directly mention the pheromone. I'll try other potential routes of getting full access. Regarding the ISBN: I usually use Google Scholar's "cite" function and copy and paste info from there. Unfortunately, this does not always contain the ISBN. Thanks for the heads up on the tool.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dog appeasing pheromone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sulcus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Colony collapse disorder‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear Jytdog, what is going on here? Is it not the case that DrChrissy reverted two of your reverts, while you reverted three of his reverts? The message you just added here seems to me woefully inappropriate and patronising. You have done much excellent and very needed work monitoring medical articles. It is important in that context, indeed imperative, to make sure premature and inadequately validated research findings are not allowed to result in medical casualties among humans. Are you claiming that Colony collapse disorder‎ falls also under the umbrella of the medical project? I have seen you elsewhere harassing DrChrissy with inappropriate claims concerning the force feeding of geese. How is that connected with human medical safety issues? Then you were claiming that sources detailing research conducted some years ago could not be used. Now you appear to be harassing DrChrissy again, claiming, this time in connection with bees, that research conducted recently cannot be used either. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Smartse has reverted my revert and pointed out that providence of the article itself is dubious. However, that is a separate issue, and was not the issue raised by Jytdog. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the issue I raised each time was that in general WP should be based on secondary sources, not brand new primary ones. The secondary literature is where we find out if some primary source is crackpot. or actually worth something. I didn't want to make things worse by writing what Smartse did but yes, that source is the kind of thing you find published sometimes in the literature, that is most likely to get ignored in reviews. But it is not for us as WP editors to judge if some primary source is worthwhile or not - we let experts in the field tell us in review articles. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not just in review articles but also in review sections. That is the material you are disruptively removing.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed my comment here, as discussion is underway at the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• DrChrissy, you have added , and edit warred to retain, this source in a 2nd article now. Added to Magnetoception here, reverted here by Smartse citing the RSN discussion, you added it back content about this topic based on primary sources here with an accompanying note on Smartse's talk page here; I saw the latter and went to the article and again removed the source reverted here. Please stop adding this contested source to articles until consensus is reached at RSN. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed sources which are not being discussed at RSN and are RS. So I have reverted you. Please stop your edit-warring.DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, regardless of where you saw/traced my edits, you have followed me to an article and made disruptive edits. This is WP:HOUNDING. Please desist.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for missing it, that you did not include the contested source when you edit warred the content back into the article; you did include it the first time. I would have self-reverted b/c my rationale was not correct but you already did. In any case, please see discussion opened at Talk:Magnetoception#Bees about the remaining sources. My apologies again for missing it that you did not include it the 2nd time. Jytdog (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DrChrissy, it's ridiculous to get in a snit because Jytdog removed his own post, which you had not replied to at that time.[46] Now it appears on both your page and article talk. I don't understand what advantage you see in that, nor why you preferred to reply here. Bishonen | talk 14:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

User:Bishonen, I am flattered that an admin as busy and productive as yourself has the time to monitor my Talk page. Thank you for your comments and of course you are correct. Whilst you are here, please would you be so kind as to offer an admin's view on the behaviour of Jytdog in the section above titled "Battleground"User talk:DrChrissy#BATTLEGROUND.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid I'm not up for discussing the matter with you after noticing your removal of TenOfAllTrades' post here, without even the courtesy of an edit summary. While you're "allowed" to selectively blank informative posts from your page, I'm not obliged to find the practice decent or honest. And I wasn't in fact "monitoring" your page, I stumbled on it, but since you esteem my attention flattering I may start watching it now. Bishonen | talk 23:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Please do. Your input will always be welcome.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing on your discussion page because User:Montanabw is active on the horse behavior page. there is a reference about leading in free ranging horses Movement initiation in groups of feral horses. but I am afraid Montanabw will redo any changes because of wrong English or poor designed studies. (previous experience with her) Maybe you can try it.Etron770 (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Etron770. User:Montanabw and I have locked horns before, but sometime ago we kissed and made up. We have great mutual respect for each other and we both edit to benefit the encyclopaedia. I will try to make the edits I have been proposing. See you at the page.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would just remark that [Charlotte-Hemelrijk] (Professor of self-organization of social systems)is an expert in the field.Etron770 (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you are suggesting I do with that information. Perhaps you would like to clarify?DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would only give you a hint that the study should not be a "poor designed study (often used by Montanabw)" because Hemelrijk as expert was involved :-) Etron770 (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a qualified ethologist (not that this matters all that much, really). The study has some limitations, but these are not so severe that the study can not be cited. I'm a scientist, and for me a quantitative study considerably outweighs anecdotes. Furthermore, I am not entirely happy with the quality of the sources I used to indicate these anecdotes, but I was trying to present a balanced view. The belief that people have about there being lead mares can be verified, and of course, WP is about whether something can be verified, not whether it is the truth. I have presented this, alongside the quantitative study. Let's see what comments are made, if any.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't know ... do you know this summary: [summary] f.e the results of Joel Berger are cited (page 5)Etron770 (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen this abstract before - thank you. I tried to look at the Berger paper but I can only get the abstract at this stage. Unfortunately, it does not state in the abstract, how many groups he recorded. This is absolutely critical because each group must be considered as the statistical unit. This is because the animals are not behaving independently and to assume that they are, is pseudo-replication. Do you know how many groups Berger studied?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I know it is written in Wild Horses of the Great Basin: Social Competition and Population Size (Wildlife Behavior and Ecology) by Joel Berger (Mar 1986) a short description (if you have access doi:10.1016/0169-5347(86)90027-3 Even in a five-year study of a large mammal species, there is the risk that small sample sizes will lead to unconvincing arguments. In places,Berger’s book suffers from this problem,and from occasional lapses of clarity. But this is always the problem of studies in horses but not with rats ....

Unfortunately just now, the book is 200 miles away from me. I will ask them to send it back to me.Etron770 (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know many, many studies with rats which have just the same problems!DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)I am open to people posting solid scientific studies at the article talk page and discussing them. There is a lot of romanticized nonsense out there in horse land, and a lot of badly-designed studies, and studies done by people who, though having a doctorate or an area of expertise, still have a bias that comes through and causes issues with the neutrality of their work. I am always open to article improvement, I am just very, very dubious of people who say, "you must listen to this person because s/he is such a great expert." We need to take our time and do it right, not just edit-war over a few sentences with a great sound and fury that exchanges one POV for another. Montanabw^(talk) 22:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Montanabw - good to hear from you again. I accept your points totally. Can I please ask that this conversation is moved to the Article Talk page as it is about content, and other editors concerned about this topic need to see this. See you there.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I'm there. Montanabw^(talk) 18:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DrChrissy, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Yobol (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yobol What content did Jytdog redact?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you read the diff that you reverted to find out. In general, that is good policy to do before reverting another editor, especially on a talk page. Yobol (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I'm quite concerned that you don't seem to know the content of the diff you yourself reverted. I hope you have not made a habit of reverting other people's edits before reading the content of the edit, and do not make such a mistake again in the future. Yobol (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct - talk pages are supposed to be a record of discussion. By redacting, Jytdog was changing that record of discussion so I reverted his redaction.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to discern what material was redacted - perhaps you would be so kind to tell me. Is it possible that Jytdog said they had made a redaction but in fact had not?

You are unable to read or understand diffs? How can you hope to accurately make reverts if you cannot read a diff (add: indeed, you have made 5 reverts in your last 50 edits, but you can't understand the diff above? Remarkable.) Please also see WP:REDACT. Editors are allowed to edit their own comments; you are not allowed to edit others'. Please do not do this again. Yobol (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please would you tell me what material Jytdog redacted.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the bolded and color-highlighted part of the diff. Yobol (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might I also add that if you cannot read a diff, you should not be making any reverts at all until you can do so. Being able to accurately see a change on a wiki would seem to be a necessary prerequisite to performing any reverts. Yobol (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the problem now. Jytdog underlined the material, rather than striking through. WP:REDACT indicates this is permissible, however, it is the first time I have ever seen underlining used in this way.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For those who might be following this, when I reverted I did so because Jytdog told the community that he had redacted material. Normally, "redacted" means material is made invisible to the reader, as has been pointed out to Jytdog here[47]. I reverted because I believed Jytdog had made material invisible to the reader and I thought by reverting this, the material would again become visible. I have raised how this confusion came about with a suggestion for change at WP:REDACT. As a side note to talk - you have an extremely aggressive manner of conversing with me. If you come to my Talk page again, please temper your tone and accusations.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have understood that as a redaction either, for what it's worth. Looie496 (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

here is the dif. Three things: 1) edit note says "redact" (!) 2) markup is used per WP:REDACT. 3) I added an extra note and signature after my original signature, saying "redact to fix error i made". It doesn't get more thoroughly marked than that. Please note further that DrChrissy's reversion asked, in its edit note, "Why are you redacting this?" The issue was questioning my "right" to redact it all. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - not sure where you are going with this.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DrChrissy: I'm sorry if I come off as aggressive, I have no intention of that, I am just direct. The root of the problem here, as I see it, is when you did not understand what was going on, your first instinct in this case was not to discuss the issue with the editor who you did not understand, but to completely revert their edit. This is the wrong choice in most cases, but is especially poor form on a talk page, as this is a wiki and a collaborative effort requires good communication. Might I suggest that this behavior could also be construed as "aggressive", and some self reflection on your own behavior may be fruitful. Yobol (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DrChrissy, I don't believe we have met before. I came across you owing to your recent post at WP:AN and then took a look at your user page. I see that you are interested in all things to do with animals, a subject also close to my heart. The other day, and quite by chance, I undertook a secondary review of Ayrshire cattle which was passed as a GA by a reviewer who didn't really have a clue about what makes a good article. I suspect he was just trying to get his GA review score up and was passing articles for the hell of it. Anyway, the article is now listed as a GA to which I took issue with. I feel sorry for the primary author who is now having to face a wrath of comments by me in order to keep this at GA. I don't really want to delist it as it can be achieved with very little work, but I think the author could do with some help if you are able to. In particular, I'm looking for an etymology and taxonomy section which I feel could really benefit the article. Cassianto^Talk 15:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cassianto. Welcome to my Talk page. I looked at Ayrshire cattle without looking at your questions or the GA process, so these are hopefully completely unbiased comments. My first surprise was at how brief the article is and that it appeared to be lacking what I would consider basic information such as breed standards. I was also surprised at the rather poor phrasing and images/placement that might be expected of a GA. In short, I agree with you that it was premature to pass this as a GA. Update - Have just looked at the Talk page and it appears it has NOT been GA approved. I will join you at the article to help with its development.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. It turns out that the nominator has shunned my offer by approaching the Guildhall of Copy Editors instead. Nevertheless, I shall ignore this rebuke and work with you to improve it. See you there, and thanks again. Cassianto^Talk 15:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across this and this which my be of use? Cassianto^Talk 18:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DrChrissy, it appears you are under a topic ban from "biomedical topics, broadly construed" (emphasis mine), which would include all content regarding human health. Recently, you got into a discussion on this section of the talk page on Genetically modified foods, which is a discussion about how to use a statement regarding the safety of GMO food on human health. This would appear to be violation of the topic ban, and I would encourage you to desist from further discussion in the topic area and strike your comments. Yobol (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads-up on this. The Article and its Talk page are about Genetically modified food and it has already been established my posting there is not in violation of my topic ban. More specifically, my posting refers to the edits of another editor and makes no attempt whatsoever to discuss biochemical topics, broadly construed. In even more detail, the petition relates to "GMO safety". I am sure you are aware there are many aspects of GMO safety that are not Biomedical, no matter how broadly construed, for example, reductions in biodiversity, ecological pollutants, hybridisation with non-GMO wildlife.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the statement clearly includes a discussion of human health, and therefore a discussion about that statement is in my opinion a topic ban violation. Note that any discussion of human health/medical issues anywhere on Wikipedia would be a topic ban violation; there is not "safe" article or talk page where you can discuss issues regarding human health. I am pinging @Adjwilley: and @Beeblebrox: who placed the topic bans on you to get their input. Yobol (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is the statement in question, which undoubtedly discusses human health, and is the main thrust of the statement. To argue this statement does not discuss human health is not believable. Yobol (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please note that my posting was about the petition, not the statement.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This diff clearly shows you discussing that statement and its reception in sources. Please stop digging. Yobol (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am straining to see how DrChrissy violated her topic ban based on the above!... Just saying.--Aspro (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have changed the diff!DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this diff, I do not make any mention whatsoever of the statement or its reception. I simply provide information on the publishers of sources provided by another editor. Your misleading and spurious claims that I have violated my topic ban are unwelcome. Along with the extremely caustic and demeaning language you used toward me above at "Editing other editor's talk page comments", I believe this is WP:Harassment. You may wish to consider striking through your comments while I decide on what further action I might take.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yobol, shouldnt you be off improving the project somewhere rather than trying to get people banned or blocked? If people like you spent half as much time on improving an article somewhere rather than on petty squabbles, the project would be much improved. Cassianto^Talk 15:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. @Yobol. Concentrate on contributing something useful to WP's body of knowledge.--Aspro (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say there's probably a mild topic ban violation. For instance, in this diff you are discussing the relevance of this article as a source, and the article is clearly talking about human health. There's an exception for animal health in your topic ban, but you weren't clearly talking about animal health in the diff. I don't buy the argument that because the articles also talk about envirohmental and animal health they're fair game for you. The point of the topic ban was to keep you away from all articles related to human health, and MEDRS related discussions. Also, when someobody informs you of a possible topic ban violation, you need to take them very seriously, not argue about it and then accuse them of Harassment. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adjwilley - thank you for your carefully considered input. Please be reassured that I take extremely seriously, any suggestion that I might have violated my topic ban, but I respectfully reserve the right to defend myself if I believe that accusation is spurious. Please also accept that I have been, and continue to work extremely hard to avoid violating my topic ban. I could present many, many examples of how I have been doing this, but perhaps the most recent one happened just a few minutes ago. As you know, I regularly edit animal articles. I am currently editing the Ayrshire cattle article and I was researching characteristics of this breed. I found an article which discussed characteristics in general (e.g. behaviour, horn length), but also included information on milk yield (e.g. protein, fat, somatic cell count). I decided that using information on milk yield was (broadly construed) related to human health and so my introducing it into WP would violate my topic ban. I therefore did not include this content. I have been very, very careful not to discuss biomedical subjects, but sometimes, in fact very often, my primary editing topics of "animals" and "animal health" mean I use sources that also contain information on biomedical subjects and/or human health. For example, almost any book on laboratory animals will include biomedical content. Am I breaching my topic ban if I use such sources to edit WP whilst steering well clear of all discussion of biomedical/human health?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not reassured, as you apparently don't take it seriously enough to strike/remove the post in question, even though 3 users agree it's a topic ban violation. From what I've observed of your editing here, DrChrissy, your biggest weakness in my opinion, is that when somebody says that you're wrong on something, instead of seriously considering their argument you dig in on your original view, defending it regardless of what evidence the other side presents. (This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.) A recent example comes to mind where you argued really hard in favor of using some Journal of Astrobiology as a source about honeybees, despite multiple people saying the journal wasn't reliable. Eventually somebody took it to RS/N where it immediately came out that the journal was complete fringe that also reports on UFO sightings. Even then you still continued fighting, accusing people of attacking you personally. This kind of thing really bugs me, and will probably significantly shorten your Wikipedia career if it doesn't stop. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adjwilley I agree with that the single cited case was a mild topic ban violation. However, we've had multiple such violations already in discussions about human health where DrChrissy has claimed to be discussing things not directly on human health, but still indirectly influencing the overall conversation centered on human health. I'm not one to look right away to see people blocked, but I'm not so sure the topic ban is working here. Even an overlap with human and non-human means you stay far away with a topic ban, and we're dealing with far less than benign examples than the Ayrshire cattle example they gave above.

In the last few days, these two talk page sections show their involvement in discussions centered on human-health related content: [48], [49] (just search for their username rather than individual diffs for more context). Someone respecting their topic ban would know to stay away from those conversations completely, but also wouldn't skirt the topic ban to use an article talk page to pursue vendettas against other editors rather than discuss content.[50] We're still seeing some of the disruptive behavior that lead to the topic ban nested within these attempts to still remain tangentially involved in human health related content. Multiple cautions from others (even those siding with them on a specific piece of content) have not changed this trend. Since warnings don't appear to be working and you've been brought to this page at least three times already for DrChrissy "testing the limits" of their topic ban, what options do you see at this point? Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very interesting that you admit you can not provide diffs that I have actually violated my topic ban, instead, you send readers off on some chase to find "context". If this goes to a noticeboard, I think admins will expect much, much better of you.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already provided the posts. Please don't be obtuse. I already explained above that the purpose of those specific talk page discussions involved content on human health. Anyone, including yourself can find the posts just as easily as clicking a diff link where you have posted in those sections. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Those discussions were/are to do with GMO safety, not human health. You have not provided diffs which show I have made any comment whatsoever on human health. You appear to have ignored my posting below.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate, the discussions I have entered are on GM safety not human health. If I have made any comment whatsoever on human health issues, please provide diffs.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrChrissy,

I have noticed you have undid the edit but wouldn't you think that, the picture I have added was of best quality and FP in commons ? DreamSparrow ^Chat 18:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Welcome to my talk page. I reverted because the original image, in my opinion, is an animal in a more natural posture and with a more natural facial expression. The image is from wikicommons, so I believe is admissible on the article page. What criteria do you measure "quality" by? The image is clear, focused, no distracting background, etc.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]