User talk:Jack B108

Welcome!

Hello, Jack B108, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Priyanath ^talk 16:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that in Wikipedia's Manual of Style (WP:MOS), regarding section headings: "Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest lower case." Plus, the term "self-realization" is actually a generic term, as the article points out, and since it's also not a proper noun, it shouldn't be capitalized. You'll find that there are alot of other rules unique to wikipedia, that sometimes drive copy editors crazy. Those guidelines are helpful to read, and also WP:BLP. Welcome, best of luck, and happy editing. Priyanath ^talk 16:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My revertion was not principally about the date - although that did give me pause for thought - but rather about the assertion itself. My recollection is the "Silent Spring" was in part a response to the growing awareness of integrated environmental issues and the science that bound them together. There were also many more significant issues than the incidents in the US to which you refer. This reads like an unsourced and undefendable POV. Can you find a source for this or is it simple an opinion ?  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   23:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you undid an edit by an IP, saying (and I quote) "Undoing unjustified change from unregistered user" (diff). Let me remind you that IPs are still important contributors to Wikipedia. As it turns out, that IP was on to something, because Columbus does not officially extend into Fairfield County. So, for next time, assume good faith and discuss with an editor if they made an edit you don't think is right. Thanks!--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 16:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd suggest that if you think that "Tour of California" should always be prefixed by "Amgen", then you should take it back to Talk:Tour of California. We generally try to always use the same names of races in articles as the articles are themselves called. Sponsors names aren't often part of the common names of races (which guide how articles are titled) but some are (off the top of my head, and ignoring those named after the original organising newspaper, the Amstel Gold Race, the Eneco Tour and the Vattenfall Cyclassics are two examples) so it's not a hard requirement. Cheers! Severo^TC 14:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me what the NFL Draft has to do with vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.199.83 (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page at Romm's article. Thanks for alerting me to the deletion. Fell Gleaming has been attacking Romm's article for a few years, off and on. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Update Please contribute there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, have you read the WP:REDLINK editing guideline? Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your drug buddy, Lance Armstrong is going down, guess you're going to have to eat humble pie now as your idol says goodbye to all his cheated awards and his global reputation. [1], [2]

Sports Illustrated's report claims a police raid found performance-enhancing drugs and documents linking Armstrong to controversial Italian doctor Michele Ferrari. Armstrong has denied having contact with Ferrari since 2004, but the report alleges the pair have been in contact as recently as 2009. [3]

You personally attack those who rubbish Armstrong. But you are too dumb to ask the question yourself, why there is no fuss over the likes of Fignon, Lemond and Indurain? Because these guys are heroes whereas Armstrong has always been dogged with the smell of a shameless cheat. Looking forward to the case, so my advice is you'd better bite the pillow now lover, and let the truth go in without a fight.... xxx

The 'fall' of my 'drug buddy' Armstrong does not erase the stench of the anonymous posting here, which is childish. Jack B108 (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to why you changed "the Arch" to "the arch"? It's the Arch, not any old arch. I understand not capitalizing things like "the earth" or "the president", but as "the Arch" is a commonly used nickname, it should be capitalized. I'm also not sure what you meant by "archaic" in your edit summary; yes, "the Arch" is used in the 1960s ([4], [5], [6]) but "the Arch" is also used in more recent years and appears to be much more prominent than "the arch": [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Also, "the Arch" is used on its website, by Reuters as well as The New York Times, and the National Park Service. Therefore, I think "the Arch" is appropriate over "the arch"; would it be OK if I changed them back to "the Arch"? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, Fetchcomms, but I disagree. Academic publishers don't capitalize common nouns like they used to: it's not the modern style, and encyclopedia entries are written independent of how papers such as the Nu York Times like to publish. See my response on the Gateway Arch Talk page. Jack B108 (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added the {{Lead too long|date=March 2011}} tag which you removed from the Grand Junction, Colorado entry, as per MOS:LEAD. Please do not unilaterally remove tags. The lede is overly long and reads like an advert, compare it to the lede of any other Wikipedia entry. - CompliantDrone (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I started the nomination section and am working to improve the article. Someone else is vandalising it and deleting my work. But I think these contributions are a good start. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.146.32 (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Paramahansa Yogananda, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Yworo, Your clumsy 'edit' and overturn of my correction to Yogananda's page are good examples of why I no longer spend too much time on wp. You shouldn't be arguing about people over self-evident facts. What do you even know about U.S. immigration policy and this specific case? It's beneath my dignity to go drag up Yogananda's proof of citizenship, but it exists, and it is well-known to religious historians that this prominent person became an American citizen. Jack B108 (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, a couple of us are trying to bring the LeMonde article up to good article status. We have been considering splitting off the section on doping controversies and Greg's involvement as a former racer/commentator on the subject to it's own second page. If you get a chance could you stop by and see what you think? Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, just wanted to thank you for the compliment you paid us on the talk page for Greg LeMond. It's nice to have the hard work recognized, and Gunbirddriver (talk) and I certainly did our best to improve the article. Cheers! joepa^T 20:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, wanted to ask you something - do you know how to identify the instances/problems in Greg LeMond that are resulting in the following "hidden categories" being appended to the article?

• Category:Commons category with local link same as on Wikidata
• Category:Good articles
• Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL
• Category:Use mdy dates from August 2011

Any insight you could provide into identifying what the problems are and rectifying them would be appreciated. Thanks! joepa^T 21:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with those issues, Joep01. I think technically that's a little out of my league, sorry. Yours, Jack B108 (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops Jack B108 - I just noticed you actually took this out from the top of the page -

This biography of a living person relies too much on references to primary sources. Please help by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. Find sources: "Jack B108" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (May 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

- what would call that? You can request that it be removed but you can't remove it. I just put it back as the article clearly relies mostly on primary sources and needs many more 3rd party references. Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Red Rose 13, if you read the page update, the subject of it died last Sunday. BLP ('Biographies of Living Persons') policies therefore don't apply, and those tags are arbitrary anyway. Jack B108 (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The biographies of living people policy is applied not only to the living, but also the recently deceased. In general, BLP applies for a year after death. Therefore the template should not have been removed. Yworo (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's really funny, Yworo. BLP applies to the dead, too, sure of course. You are chipping away with Red Rose 13 at Kriyananda, a recently deceased person, to make it more disrespectful, yet if someone doesn't go along with you guys, you cite BLP for dead people. BLP was meant to protect the dignity of the subject, not excuse what you have done. Jack B108 (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in turn Jack for your own help and support in keeping Kriyananda page more neutral. In this particular kind of subject, such efforts often seem like crawling through molasses and it mkes all the difference to see other people making the same efforts! Joesonyx (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jack,

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia but I think I'm about to learn that one thing Wikipedia isn't good at is assuring fairness in feuds between followers of a 'bigger' spiritual figure and a 'smaller' one. Perhaps I am, in the vulgar expression, 'pissing into the wind' in these efforts. I've read a bit about WP:CPUSH and it recognizes that Wikipedia is bad at this sort of thing, with the stated prevalence of civil POV-pushing in NRMs.

In this 'consensus'-based environment, on issues on which people feel very strongly, they apply double-standards in any number of ways. The results are anomalies like: We must be strict in looking to publications alone to find the prevalence of 'Swami' for Kriyananda -- we do not have to be strict in looking to publications alone in finding the prevalence of 'Paramhansa' for Yogananda -- a result that is almost inevitable considering Kriyananda has his title in at least as prevalent a fashion as Yogananda. Out-of-guidelines arguments will be used wholesale against Kriyananda -- out-of-guidelines arguments will be dismissed immediately if they are used against Yogananda, but out-of-guidelines arguments will be used wholesale in favor of Yogananda.

The resulting reluctant conclusion I'm reaching is that due to the prevalence of the pro-Yogananda POV and the anti-Kriyananda POV, consensus itself will not produce even reasobable, (as opposed to the ideal perfect) adhesion to guidelines or fairness.

I note in the guideline about WP:CPUSH, they state that a lot of people give up in trying to produce balance and fairness into these situations, and I can see why. While I haven't given up yet, I think my capitulation is coming soon.

Thoughts?

Joesonyx (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joesonyx, you are a wise person and I couldn't have said it better. This issue reveals some serious flaws in the WP concept, in my opinion. Since WP has basically put all the other general encyclopedias out of business, I am bothered by this. Jack B108 (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pointy editing such as your proposed actions at Talk:Paramahansa Yogananda and Talk:Swami Vivekananda is considered disruptive. Please be informed that the most likely result of carrying out such actions without opening discussions at requested moves and gaining consensus will be being blocked for disruption. I'll see to making the necessary reports personally. And no, "Swami Kriyananda" has not become that subject's WP:COMMONNAME, four different variants, including the subject's legal name, Kriyananda w/o the honorific, and with Swami before or after the name show this clearly to be an honorific which is only sometimes used. Yworo (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't even make a threat without total reliance on jargon ('Pointyness')? You're on very shaky ground here, especially as I've already conceded defeat to you and your allies at Kriyananda. I had every right to do what I did, was sincere about it, but when I could see that people at Yogananda and Vivekananda weren't interested, I dropped what was only a proposal, with apologies. You are out of line with your posting here. Well, you didn't call me a 'vandal' at least, a term which Red Rose 13 has thrown around with casual abandon. I am not interested in the Kriyananda page for now: it's yours, so be proud of it. Jack B108 (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack,

I'm pretty new to all of this, so maybe you can tell me a thing or two....

YWORO put this on the Kriyananda page in response to me:

For the record, I have no affiliation with either side of this dispute. I am personally not very impressed with Paramahansa Yogananda, his teachings, or the SRF. However, he does meet WP:COMMONNAME while Kriyananda does not. Continuing to accuse editors of bias due to affiliation falls under our no personal attacks policy, and continued beating of this dead horse may lead to a block.

He then put this in on my talk page:

Please note that accusing editors of bias based on their imagined affiliations is against our no personal attacks policy and continuing to make or imply such accusations may be grounds for being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Here's your first formal warning on the matter:

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to Talk:Kriyananda. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Note said 'Here's your first formal warning on the matter' and there's this blue I thing making it all official and so on.

I thought he had special admin priveleges when he stated that it is my 'first formal warning'. However, later when I looked him up on the list of administrators he is not there.

Can a user give another use a 'formal warning' like this? Is this part of the Wikipedia process?

Thanks, Joesonyx (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WP, Joesonyx, LOL. Just try to chill and not worry about it. I could have made a similar 'warning' to another editor there, but it's not a huge deal :) Maybe try and find another subject you like, and you can probably still have a lot of fun. A lot of people truly want to denigrate Swami K, so that page is not for the 'faint of heart', LOL. But that page was easy going for several years, and in fact, was a little too breezy towards SK for a while. Now it's gone too far the other way. Also, one used to be able to register an email address and have discussions like this in private, which is more appropriate, but apparently (?) that option is no longer part of the system. I would say more, but I won't in 'public'. Yours, Jack B108 (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm GeorgeLouis. Your recent edit to the page Hollywood, Los Angeles appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Hollywood sign is not in Hollywood. The statue monument certainly is. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GeorgeLouis, I stand by my work. I'm sorry you don't want to leave the Hollywood sign in an article about the same area (the article is about the district and the general meaning of the name). I think it's silly to take the sign out, like it doesn't even exist. Jack B108 (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jack B108. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources for John A. McDougall that are not already included on his article? Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there are pages and pages of peer-reviewed medical journal references that are the basis for this work. You guys won't use them; I can see that they've been provided to you directly before in discussion, and since Dr. McDougall is so open about publication it would take about five minutes to pull one of his free books off the Internet and look at the pages and pages of peer-reviewed citations for everything he prescribes. If somebody like me put them in, you would only take them right back out; those you would be taking out would be to in articles from JAMA, the American Heart Association journal Circulation, from the Journal of Clinical Nutrition, from Nature Climate, and so on. So what you are doing is promoting slant and bias on the internet based on some supposed Wikipedia policy on primary sources for medical claims.

Hey, you folks own this page. You're the editors: take some responsibility for the poor shape of it. One of the primary problems is with Wikipedia itself because you put out information that's misleading, biased, or an accurate, yet you won't take responsibility for that. You'll cite policy or consensus instead of actually fixing the problem. I think you're more interested in computer code and rules and bureaucracy than in actually putting out good articles in the public interest. Prove me wrong. Jack B108 (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS! NOT ALLOWED ON WP.

Hazards of Long-Term Cow’s Milk Consumption Chronic Consumption Leads to Chronic Disease (25) 1. Saxton RA, Sabatini DM. mTOR signaling in growth, metabolism, and disease. Cell. 2017;168(6):960-976. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2017.02.004

2. Melnik BC. Milk—a nutrient system of mammalian evolution promoting mTORC1-dependent translation. Int J Mol Sci. 2015;16(8):17048-17087. doi:10.3390/ijms160817048

3. Han YY, Forno E, Brehm JM, et al. Diet, interleukin 17, and childhood asthma in Puerto Ricans. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2015;115(4):288-293.e1. doi:10.1016/j.anai.2015.07.020

4. Frosh A, Cruz C, Wellsted D, Stephens J. Efect of a dairy diet on nasopharyngeal mucus secretion. The Laryngoscope. 2019;129(1):13-17. doi:10.1002/lary.27287

5. Bartley J, McGlashan SR. Does milk increase mucus production? Med Hypotheses. 2010;74(4):732-734. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2009.10.044

6. Han YY, Forno E, Alvarez M, et al. Diet, lung function, and asthma exacerbations in Puerto Rican children. Pediatr Allergy Immunol Pulmonol. 2017;30(4):202-209. doi:10.1089/ped.2017.0803

7. Yusof NA, Hampton SM, Dickerson JW, Morgan JB. The efects of exclusion of dietary egg and milk in the management of asthmatic children: a pilot study. J R Soc Promot Health. 2004;124(2):74-80. doi:10.1177/146642400412400211

8. Egger J, Carter CM, Wilson J, Turner MW, Soothill JF. Is migraine food allergy? A double-blind controlled trial of oligoantigenic diet treatment. Lancet. 1983;2(8355):865-869. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(83)90866-8

9. Karjalainen J, Martin JM, Knip M, et al. A bovine albumin peptide as a possible trigger of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus [published correction appears in N Engl J Med 1992 Oct 22;327(17):1252]. N Engl J Med. 1992;327(5):302-307. doi:10.1056/NEJM199207303270502

10. Infant feeding practices and their possible relationship to the etiology of diabetes mellitus. American Academy of Pediatrics Work Group on Cow's Milk Protein and Diabetes Mellitus. Pediatrics. 1994;94(5):752-754.

11. Vaarala O, Paronen J, Otonkoski T, Akerblom HK. Cow milk feeding induces antibodies to insulin in children--a link between cow milk and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus? Scand J Immunol. 1998;47(2):131-135. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3083.1998.00282.x

12. Goldfarb MF. Relation of time of introduction of cow milk protein to an infant and risk of type-1 diabetes mellitus. J Proteome Res. 2008;7(5):2165-2167. doi:10.1021/pr800041d

13. Clemens RA. Milk A1 and A2 peptides and diabetes. Nestle Nutr Workshop Ser Pediatr Program. 2011;67:187-195. doi:10.1159/00032

Jack B108 (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of those references mention John A. McDougall and I doubt you have read any of those papers because most of them are not on the "Hazards of Long-Term Cow’s Milk Consumption". They were not long-term studies and some of them do not even mention milk, did you read them? So what you are citing is original research and does not prove what you are claiming. You should also know by now that all of the above are primary medical papers, not high-quality evidence from reviews. We do not cite primary sources regarding biomedical content on Wikipedia per WP:MEDRS policy as we need good quality systematic reviews or biomedical textbooks, so what you are suggesting above is violating Wikipedia policy. But let me explain to you why such sources are not even good for what you are claiming.

• The first reference you cite [12] is an obscure paper on mTOR signalling that I doubt would be understood by anyone without a degree in physiology. The paper does not mention dairy or milk. The paper does not mention milk so how does it prove "Hazards of Long-Term Cow’s Milk Consumption"?!

• The third reference [13] "Diet, Interleukin 17, and Childhood Asthma in Puerto Ricans" is based on a food questionnaire that was given to children in San Juan. I think even you would agree this is very weak evidence, children filling out a food questionnaire? It is a very weak association study which admits it did not even look distinguish types of dairy products (whole, low fat or fat free). It was also a biased population sample. I noticed you cite other studies (reference 6) from Puerto Ricans and several are on asthma, why not bigger population samples? How many confounding factors are at play here? I do not oppose association studies but there are many limitations here. These studies are not controlled, how do you know the asthma was not the effect of poor-living or air conditions in San Jaun? Many of these children are from poor households. These studies do not show any effect. Not everything is diet related. A more likely explanation [14] is that early-life respiratory virus endemics contribute to Puerto Rico’s high asthma rates in children [15].

• Reference 8, "Is migraine food allergy? A double-blind controlled trial of oligoantigenic diet treatment" [16], this is a double-blind controlled trial from 1983, quite old but I have no problem with old sources if they are reliable. I do not have full access to it but the study has nothing to with with dairy! I don't see how it proves the "Hazards of Long-Term Cow’s Milk Consumption" when the study was not on milk and lasted a few weeks. None of the studies you have shown are long-term. I hope you realise that.

I could go on and point out errors in all of the other primary studies, but you get the idea. You have merely copied and pasted this list from John McDougall's website. I have criticized dairy from a scientific point of view and am personally not a fan of it, but seriously, if you are going to criticize something you need to make a valid case. The most interesting paper there is the material by Bodo C. Melnik (he has written some interesting content about milk consumption in relation to mTORC1 but this guy can't get published in a decent journal [17]). He can only get his ideas published in MDPI which is a predatory publisher. In conclusion, you have not given any reliable references that can be used on Wikipedia, but even if you did, none of these papers mention John A. McDougall so why would any of these be relevant for his Wikipedia biography? You have not explained how a paper looking at diet and asthma in Puerto Rican children helps John A. McDougall's Wikipedia article.

I am afraid, you are not thinking rationally, you are pointing the figure at other editors, but you are the problem for citing unreliable material. Please take a step back and really look at what you are citing. If you are going to make a YouTube video about all of this like you said, I think you should own up and admit your mistakes. It is not about "owning" a Wikipedia page, it is about citing reliable sources. You have not presented any. Take care. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

re: "You have merely copied and pasted this list from John McDougall's website." [peer-reviewed citation list regarding dairy]. Really? And how did you logically deduce that? Your rhetoric or logic is fuzzy. Good assumption or guess though. But this is the source:

Contributors to this report include Neal Barnard, MD; Frank Frich, PhD; Chritian Gonzalez, ND; Michael Klaper, MD; Suan Levin, RD; James Loomi, MD; James Marin, RD; Milton Mils, MD; Mat Rucigno, RD; Angie Sadeghi, MD; Eric Sternlicht, PhD; and Kim Wiliams, MD. A Scientific Report on Cow's Milk, Health and Athletic Performance. Los Angeles, California: Switch4Good Inc; 2020.

What editing mistakes on John A. McDougall have I made? There are zero edits from my account saved on that entry. Oh, you mean the 'potential' mistakes? The ones that might get the article up to bare minimum editorial standards? Jack B108 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is peer-reviewed does not mean it is good or reliable for Wikipedia, you need to check through the material, you are citing totally irrelevant and unreliable sources. But ok you are correct about where it came from, you have copied and pasted the above from [18], this is not a peer-reviewed review paper in a medical journal it is something you have copied and pasted from an advocacy website. Are you happy just copying and pasting random material? That is not really a good sign of editing. None of the papers in that list you cited mention McDougall or cite any of his research; so why would it be relevant to his Wikipedia article? How would a paper on Puerto Rican children's asthma help John A. McDougall's Wikipedia article? You are criticizing sources on the article like the science-based medicine piece that mentions McDougall but you want those removed and instead off-topic material cited about milk? Is that logical? I think not! We can only cite sources on a Wikipedia biography if they specifically mention that person. This is Wikipedia policy, nothing to do with bias against McDougall.

The switch4good website is a vegan advocacy website that recommends people ditch dairy. Interesting website but none of this would be considered reliable for Wikipedia or for John McDougall's Wikipedia biography. On further investigation it appears the above sources you cited were collected by Michael Klaper and nobody else, so this is a list collected by Dr. Klaper. Why have you cited it? Again, none of this has anything to do with McDougall. I realise you have not edited McDougall's article, the mistakes I am talking about are highlighted above and in your edits on the talk-page. You are citing off-topic material and claiming such material should be put on McDougall's Wikipedia article when such material does not mention McDougall. You have some of the most bizarre editing and suggestions I have seen in a while. Thank you for making me smile. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I know you are interested in John A. McDougall but I have not seen you state an opinion on other plant-based physicians or writers. What do you think about Dean Ornish's Wikipedia article for example? Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dare I look? I saw one of you mention his work on Dr. McDougall's page, and it was not a complimentary reference. It was biased and slanted and said that he was a pseudoscientist; really!? I wish there were more full professor pseudoscientists with MD degrees that actually get results with treating the epidemic of coronary artery disease---bring on the quacks! [He gets real results and that are documented in real journals]. However, I did look at the Dr. Robert Atkins page and it didn't look that bad. It's a little bit sparse, though. Jack B108 (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the Dean Ornish Wikipedia page within the last day or two, and it actually doesn't look too bad... but why is Dean Ornish a real doctor on Wikipedia and Dr. McDougall is not? If anything, Dr. McDougall is more scientific and more of an old-fashioned, hard-nosed practitioner than Dean Ornish... Do you see that? Yet you have done a hatchet job on Dr. McDougall because you disagree with his work. He actually never talks about anything that's not evidence-based or from empirical science, really. Dean Ornish talks about touchy-feely things such as meditation and family ties all the time and has integrated this approach into his work as a component of healing. Yet you guys have made him look like he's a lot more scientific than Dr. McDougall.

Hey, this is a digression from what actually makes good writing it in an encyclopedia, but did you ever look up the history of plate tectonics theory? I think you are the guys that would have viciously attacked somebody in the mid-1960s if they didn't believe in geosyncline theory describing uplift. And now look at the world of geology, how much it has changed. Nobody argues about plate tectonics anymore. Jack B108 (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been more than six years since your last edit. This is unrelated to any of the articles, but I'm curious: Have you just not been interested in editing for six years? Or lost your password and finally recovered it? Or had a job change, so you've got a bit of time? (A lot of editors return upon retirement, divorce, kids moving out, layoffs at work, etc.) Or something else? The stories behind what makes editors stop editing always interest me. No worries if you don't happen to feel like talking about in public. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi WhatamIdoing, thank you for your interest.. I probably am back here only briefly, critiquing an article, John A. McDougall, and then I probably won't be back for quite a while. You can look and see the personal attacks and irrational bias exhibited by one of the editors of that page, who is making attacks on me on my personal page here. I don't particularly enjoy it, and I think your platform has some weaknesses. However, I do on occasion look things up on Wikipedia and sometimes find it useful and enjoyable, such as some of your content regarding the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia and the slaughter of civilians there, as noted in the movie 'the killing fields". I found that very useful the other day. Best regards, Jack B108 (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. It's not really "my" platform.  ;-) The English Wikipedia gets a lot of self-promotionalism and nutrition nonsense, so the volunteers who watch those articles might be a bit burned out. I'll go look at the article in a bit, but I'm not really interested in learning more about the subject, so I don't expect to be able to do much beyond fixing the hyphenation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some reasons I am highly skeptical of the value of Wikipedia follow. I do understand, though, that there are still many beneficial aspects. But the junk and misinformation is quite worrisome.

Jul 2021, serious Wikipedia criticism from its cofounder; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0P4Cf0UCwU.

Feb 2022, my review of poor presentation and bias on Wikipedia entry John A. McDougall, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A14074CBA6Q&t=10s.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hey. You're threatening me because I dare even bring up a discussion. How authoritarian of you. My "edits"? I haven't made any edits to actual outward-facing content. Or youre upset because I've actually mentioned constructive third-party criticism of Wikipedia? How helpful and democratic of you...not.

I'm quite familiar with the policies Wikipedia uses to justify its often biased encyclopedia entries. You apparently don't want any discussion of that. Could you be a little more specific rather than bureaucratically threatening? Thanks Jack B108 (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not threatening you, but warning you given the situation. You're expected to work cooperatively with other editors, following our policies. I don't see this going well if you continue as you are doing even here. --Hipal (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dealing with an authoritarian here, apparently. WP writing and editing on Deepak Chopra doesn't meet bare minimum standards. Thanks for clarifying to me that WP has become the Facebook of encyclopedias, putting out junk, but controlling the platform. Your 'disruptive' is my 'maligning the biography of a living person and propagating biased info on a highly visible platform." Jack B108 (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you work with edit requests or something similarly structured, and avoid further comments attacking editors and Wikipedia. --Hipal (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you spend more time working on the article than on attacking people that are constructively pointing out major flaws in it and attempting to improve the quality of the world's most important encyclopedia. You folks seem a lot more interested in the structure of Wikipedia and attacking anybody with a fresh view than in actually reviewing editorial content here. That is why I have resorted to criticizing Wikipedia itself in the perhaps vain hope that it would reform itself. To you, "I don't see this going well if you continue as you are doing even here." Jack B108 (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I've made any attacks, but I'm happy to refactor my comments to help the situation. --Hipal (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]