Jump to content

User talk:Jytdog/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

August 2016

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Philippe Cousteau Jr..

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Please discuss content disputes on the talk page. You appear to be engaged in an edit war and have reached the 3RR threshold. EditorDownUnder (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

--Lurker response-- Jytdog's actions fall under the BLP exemption of 3RR, in that he is trying to correct the addition of promotional, unsourced materials to a BLP page. BLP was mentioned on the article's talk page. Therefore this warning is wholly unjustified. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Momina Mustehsan

Hello The correct D.O.B of Momina Mustehsan is September 5, 1993. She told me on instagram via direct message. Shall i put up a screenshot of our chat as a reference? Immu01 20:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

No. That is not a reliable source. Please read WP:RS and also WP:BLP - the latter is a very important policy in Wikipedia and you must follow it. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back!

I thought you had been indeffed, for an offence supposedly so heinous that it couldn't even be described. So I was very pleased to find (at Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich) that you are with us again. You do excellent work, particularly on medical articles that actually matter to people unlike the claptrap that most of us waste our time on. I hope you long continue to contribute. Maproom (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!  :) Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Harassment of other Users

copied here from message left on my userpage in this dif. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Please review the text of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment for more information on why your recent behavior related to Centers for Disease Control is inappropriate. Taking five actions in response to an edit, including multiple edits to my user page, is harassment. Any further attempts at intimidation or threats will be treated as further harassment and escalated as necessary. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahrin (talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

oy Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Momina Mustehsan.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. If u think my citations are not reliable then how come u keep on adding stuff that make no sense at all on the article Momina Mustehsan? u don't either provide reliable sources. Immu 01 23:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immu 01 (talk • contribs)

this is off-base, and your post above is incorrect. You need to use reliable sources for content about living people, Immu. It is not optional. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Immu 01 --lurker response-- Immu 01, your edits are in violation of WP:BLP's requirement for no original research. Until you can make edits that adhere to Wikipedia's policies, you are the only one making disruptive edits. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: “Please see Talk”.

I do not see anything in the talk page that is relevant to your revert. Please clarify and highlight my user name on response. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC).

It is there and you were pinged; was working on it. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Belated welcome back

I saw the drama surrounding your COI work and the claims of outing. I'm glad to see you're back, and appalled that there was actually anyone who didn't see that you were doing your usual COI work in good faith. You are owed an apology from both ArbCom for instituting a topic ban, and from whomever made the call to block in the first place, in my opinion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

thanks for the welcome back! Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary revertion in “empathogen-entactogen”

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Empathogen-entactogen. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Reverting without justification is not acceptable. Neither are editors in general, required to obtain consensus prior to any edit per WP:BOLD. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

As you know this is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#New_format_of_linking_articles and currently there is no consensus for what you are doing. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikiprojects have no power to make any binding decision on article-space content per WP:Local consensus. Content that affects Empathogen-entactogen must be discussed on its talk page or a WP:dispute resolution noticeboard approved by Wikipedia-wide consensus. Quoting:
“For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages or template documentation written by a single individual or several participants who have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process have no more status than an essay.”
Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC).
Of course WikiProjects don't do that, and no one is claiming that WP:MED per se is claiming jurisdiction. What is happening is that several editors who are interested in this new approach you are taking have started discussing it and there is strong disagreement; the conversation happens to be taking place at the WT:MED page. When you do a new thing like this across a bunch of articles, it is appropriate to pause to gain consensus when people start objecting. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

Please comment

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Help_needed_at_Judaism_and_violence.2Fwarfare. Debresser (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents notice 2

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

(talk page watcher) @Mario Castelán Castro: assuming you mean this thread, it's already been closed. This second notice was unnecessary -- samtar talk or stalk 15:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
He does, but it was his second thread, so the notice was necessary. I just closed it quickly.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
So it is, my apologies Mario Castelán Castro -- samtar talk or stalk 15:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

James O'Keefe

Better, much better -- conforms to the ref you cited, to wit:<ref>According to tax records obtained by PRWatch.org, an investigative watchdog group run by the Center for Media and Democracy, in recent years hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations to Project Veritas have come through a fund in Alexandria, Virginia, called Donors Trust, which specializes in hiding the money trails of conservative philanthropists. In its promotional materials, Donors Trust says that it will “keep your charitable giving private, especially gifts funding sensitive or controversial issues.”</ref> The ref you cited also states that O'Keefe calls himself “an investigative journalist and a leading practitioner of modern political warfare” and that "Given O’Keefe's track record, it would be a mistake to take his grand statements too seriously"-- stuff to consider adding I guess to the article. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, you seem satisfied now. I am not interested in elaborating content further from that source, but please feel free! Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Creationism

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Polentarion (talk • contribs) 22:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, am aware of them. Thanks. Please remember to sign your posts. Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Sigh and sorry with regard to signature. I am happy to not use those templates too often. Polentarion Talk 22:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Stop icon

:Hi Jytdog, I'm notifying you I reported you at ANI for your verbal abuse toward me. Sorry about not using the correct template. Still learning. But I just wanted to make sure you were notified. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit war notice

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Mylan 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 are 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.

Now you have reverted me 3 times. That's enough of this nonsense. My judgement on what belongs in the article is at least as good as yours. You have a very bad habit of trying to own articles, and if memory serves have been taken to arbcom about this several times. Please try to behave better while you are editing. You have no right to order me about.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

--lurker response-- Smallbones, your edits violate the well-established WP:NOTNEWS policy on investigations that have not yet concluded. Jytdog was correct to revert your edits in order to enforce the policy. Your actions make you guilty of WP:3RR, and you have no grounds. You need to read WP:NOTNEWS to understand why Jytdog's actions were correct, and yours were not. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Jytdog_reported_by_User:Smallbones_.28Result:_.29

Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from sending me further unsolicited e-mails

Thank you. Polentarion Talk 18:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

sure! Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Epi-pen Suggestion

Hey,

I changed the phrasing on the epi-pen article to give a more descriptive phrasing of Mylans market share and how it "dominates" the market, which you revered. Do you have a source of the Mylan 90% figure? I think the sentence you reverted would read better and be more descriptive by actually showing the reader the figure, rather than the ambiguous statement of "dominates". Thoughts? Peter.C • talk • contribs 21:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, ~90% market share, which it has had pretty consistently since 2007 when it acquired the product, is very far from "majority". Everything in the article is very carefully sourced. You can check the refs yourself. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please do not edit my comments.

SageRad asked, I answered, he hasn't responded and he a) didn't revert it and b) further edited his own comment so there is no going back anyway. Opinions are mixed as to whether I ~should have~ done it, and I probably shouldn't have. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please refrain from editing my comments. What policy justifies this action of yours? SageRad (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm just going to say "Whatever..." and let it go. I am not the punitive or litigious type. However, i do note this action and ask for your supposed justification for it, and urge you to be civil in the future in your dialog with me as well as to refrain from editing my comments, which i think is not kosher. Also, this is not the first time that you have edited or deleted comments of mine, so it seems to be a pattern of behavior. SageRad (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we could use this moment for some good dialog. Would you please explain to me in what exact way you found my comment to be "personal attacks"? And in what way you found the comments above mine to not be "personal attacks"? I would truly like to understand, Jytdog, what is the reasoning behind your redaction. Also, how is dialog about the nature of the source that is being discussed off topic? What if i had solely stated that the Hall source itself appears to be an ideological axe grinding to my reading, but said nothing about an apparent pattern of pushing such a piece into the article? I ask these as clarifying questions, and i hope you will answer them genuinely and with civil language. Thanks in advance if you choose to do so. SageRad (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

While I applaud you for seeking dialog, SageRad, and agree generally speaking that personal attacks of any kind do not belong on WP - and also acknowledging that I tend to align ideologically with Jytdog on most scientific topics even if I don't from a personality perspective - I agree that his removal of your comments was correct, for several reasons. Your comments egregiously violated WP:TPG, specifically "Comment on content, not the contributor", "Stay objective", "Be positive", "Deal with facts", "No personal attacks", and several more. Have other authors, including Jytdog, violated in the past without repercussion? Certainly. But we are looking at this specific conversation, with its diffs, in isolation. I sincerely believe you're the only one who went over the line here, especially with the "you're stalking or marking me" and "intimidation and chilling effect" comments. It strays very far off topic and off policy, which I don't see any of the others doing. Even JzG's "inappropriately edited his article" comment, which you take umbrage with, is on topic and is objectively verifiable, excepting the "inappropriately" article. Frankly, your redacted comment could easily have caused a temporary ban, if JzG or one of the others had chosen to pursue it, and so you should be thanking them.
If you still disagree, feel free to ask any unbiased editor or admin for their opinion...I sincerely believe you'll get the same response. So please take this as a learning opportunity...we all need to keep our emotions in check, keep on topic, work to build WP constructively, and recognize our own biases and shortcomings even when we're calling out others'. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts, Jtrevor. SageRad... hm. Talk pages are for getting work done on the article. In WP "work" means building content based on reliable sources and the policies and guidelines, and working out disagreements over how to apply the policies and guidelines to sources and contents. We do that work on article Talk pags. That is what they are for. They aren't a place for people to discuss their feelings or personal perspectives about pretty much anything.
The RfC is dealing with a longstanding tension in WP between the two policies, BLP and PSCI. which is often exacerbated by the lack of reliable sources in the scientific literature about fringey notions. Discussions that spring from that tension are often made yet more difficult by passion.
All work in WP requires self-restraint and self-awareness. Me, for example. Rigor is really important to me generally, and here in WP with regard to editing per the policies and guidelines (letter and spirit). In addition, I have a bad temper. I can't tell you how often I write a first note and then revise it five or six times before I hit save... and I often redact even after I save - fighting off my passion and striving for rigor, expressed simply, and to limit myself in that to discussing content and sources based on the policies and guidelines. Sometimes I fail (infamously so) to restrain my frustration. It is a struggle for me.
I imagine you at your key board reading the RfC question and responses, with your history with the SBM site and your current focus on skeptics overtaking WP. Did you reflect on what is appropriate to write on a Wikipedia Talk page? Did you seek to limit yourself to getting the work done on the Michael Greger article?
It seems to me that you didn't, but rather let yourself go, first with the attack on the SBM source in your !vote (not grounded on or referencing any policy or guideline), and then after you were called on the justification for your !vote, in your response, most of which was about your bigger picture issue. That note was almost all un-self-restrained soapboxing of your frustration with what you see as (to frame it in Wikipedianese) systemic bias.
When I read that, I thought a few minutes about how to respond, in light of policies and guidelines. I ended up redacting the beginning, which had nothing to do directly with the topic at hand, and left the end, which a) noted that you had redacted your !vote, and b) basically repeated what you had redacted. I left b) (which was inappropriate for a talk page), throwing you a bone to avoid complete drama. I debated doing nothing. Maybe I should have. If you insist that what you wrote was correct, I will self-revert - I am uninterested in drama.
So there you go.
Oh - the relevant policy is WP:NOTFORUM and the relevant guideline is WP:TPO: some relevant bits of that: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection" .... " It is still common to simply delete gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article), test edits, and harmful or prohibited material as described above" Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I looked at what happened, and I think that you (Jytdog) should not have redacted that part of Sage's comments. All it does is make you look (again) like the self-appointed wiki-police. That does not mean that Sage was right and you were wrong on the underlying content issues. It just was needlessly adversarial. If you think that another editor is in the wrong, one of the best ways to deal with it is to let their comments remain visible for all to see. It seems to me that the response, from multiple editors, to Sage's initial RfC response was needlessly personalized. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback; as I said, maybe I shouldn't have. SageRad has further edited his 2nd comment now. Also User:Tryptofish I don't know if you are aware of User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wikipedia.2C_we_still_have_a_problem. and the earlier thread it was following up on .... Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of all that. Well, welcome to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Yep. A privilege extended to all that is retained by each user as long as he or she abides by our policies. This is not a platform to use anyway you like..... Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm mostly with Trypto on this one, Jytdog. Technically right or wrong you shouldn't be the one removing comments simply due to the optics. I think you know there's no shortage of editors waiting to pounce on any slip up to drag you to a drama board and drag up the past. Stay cool. You do a lot of good work around here but if you keep giving people ammo they're going to shoot you in foot themselves. If there's some kind of obvious issue then it will be obvious to other editors too. The edit war that blew up a couple days ago on Mylan for example. I obviously agreed it wasn't a good edit too hence my revert and comment on the TP but I wasn't going to go further than that one revert. It wasn't an egregious edit just one I viewed as needless so it wasn't worth it. I thought Smallbone's response to your first revert was horribly antagonistic and unwarranted but that's the kind of shit you're going to get. The same argument we presented, that there's no rush, applies to most edits too. If you think it's really bad use the tools WP provides. Start an RFC, post on relevant notice boards, etc. Capeo (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, very much. Will keep that all in mind. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, you've persuaded me as well Trypto. SageRad's comments clearly crossed the line but the best way to handle this would have been to urge them to self-redact instead. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
The polemic removed was typical of the sort of crap Sage is posting when not blocked, (and on his talk page when he is blocked). It is quite normal for off topic crap to be removed from article talk pages, which are supposed to be about improving the related article. I agree that it doesn't happen a lot, but that is because generally experienced editors know how they are supposed to behave. Sage knows this, and frankly I'm surprised than many more of his rants haven't been removed. Somebody whose only purpose is to complain that he isn't allowed to write what he wants in article space, must expect this sort of thing. It is also worth noting that the serial complaining is merely a continuation of his pre-wikipedia experiences with the evidence based internet, where he was justifiably given short shrift. I'm frankly very surprised it hasn't happened more frequently, and to other anti-science editors too. meh. -Roxy the dog™ bark 12:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Roxy, that's not helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This is turning into drama. There are various perspectives on what SageRad did there and what I did there. I have heard what everybody has said. The issue is moot as SageRad a) isn't responding here and b) didn't revert my redaction, and c) as noted above, has further edited his own comment, so there is no going back in any case. I am closing this. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Your narrative on AT

You created a narrative about my intentions and actions on the AT article which is false and which mischaracterizes me and my actions. I will assume your intentions were honest rather than a rather transparent way to railroad an editor into a bad situation. While I, as I said before on the article talk page, will not edit in an environment where this kind of mischaracterization takes place; I also feel its necessary to make my position clear on what you did.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC))

I just collected diffs on the discussion over the section header. Nothing about your "intentions" but only about what you have actually said and done. In my view any reasonable person will see your clear misrepresentations in the discussion about the section header. That in itself was a trivial thing (really it was) but the misrepresentations are something that have made the discussion at that article difficult in actually dealing with content. It is just one example that is ready to go should you continue to be disruptive there. If you want to make drama out of that set of diffs about the section header, that will probably not go well for you. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
You heard what I said. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC))

Presbyopia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Jytdog, I appreciate your efforts on the Ageing article, but your latest edit "People over 35 years old are at risk for developing presbyopia.[11]" is meaningless.

Think about it: Any human over the age of zero years old is at risk for developing presbyopia. Sooner or later..

What the reader really wants to know is at which age the probability becomes larger than 50-50, or indeed when presbyopia becomes a general phenomenon. According to the deleted Weale reference, the general onset of presbyopia is late 20s for Somalia, 36 for Philippines, late 40s for British, 48-50 for highland Bolivians. Surely this specific information is more useful than the present meaningless risk statement? 86.170.123.90 (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Happy to discuss article content at the article Talk page. Please discuss there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, nooo, please not the Ageing Talk page. I have spent all day trying to reason with an editor there who cannot even write intelligible English. Once she joins the conversation, we are both stuffed. At least you seem to know what you are talking about. Therefore I prefer to use your Talk page specifically for this topic, then you can delete this section on your Talk page once we have agreement. Thanks in advance. 86.170.123.90 (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Not an option. I do not have private discussions about content; I will be happy to discuss with you at the article Talk page. If there are content disagreements we will work them out on the Talk page and if that fails we will seek other WP:DR; if any editor behaves disruptively there are means for dealing with that as well. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not prepared to reason any further with that editor on the Talk page. She is incompetent at writing English rather than intentionally disruptive, so I doubt you can sanction her. So I leave the Presbyopia problem in your hands. I hope you have understood the statistical problem inherent in your sentence. Signing off now. Good night and good luck. 86.170.123.90 (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@86.170.123.90: hello ip one first I'm a guy, second I keep my grammar decent when editing. Also you were removing a ref I put in [1] for a one over 30 years old with out any reason from what I saw. finally you putting becomes apparent in British adults in their late 40s, but at earlier ages in warmer climates. Presbyopia can occur in adults as early as 40 or sooner but is much more common in older adults was redundant, I am also completely fine with Jytdog edits.

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=fVZPAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA299&dq=presbyopia+might+develop+as+you+get+older&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjl9uvbqYfPAhXK1x4KHV8pD6g4ChDoAQhEMAU#v=onepage&q&f=false

-- (Plmokg22345 (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC))

Please see above. Closing Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A good idea

I read what you wrote about engaging with BLP (on Seth Rich talk) and fleshing out you Ivote here [1], which you had already accomplished here [2]. So I decided to do the same because it is a good idea [3]. Ciao ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

ok then! Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Subst

Someone must have used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Reliable_sources_please without subst it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

that was me. I fixed it now. Sorry! Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

About the other editor's talk page

What Laser brain said. I really mean it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I am done there, as I noted there before you even wrote that. I would be interested to hear you flesh out your thoughts on this more, and will share mine, if you are interested. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not interested in discussing scientific skepticism, because I expect that my opinions are pretty similar to yours. My concern is like that of the unidentified Arb who reportedly said that you "need to calm the fuck down". I'm saying this for your own good. And by now, I really should not have to tell you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, I am done trying to talk with him for now, as I noted there. I was not asking you to comment on the other editor's issue (scientific skepticism, which I don't care about). I was asking you to comment further - to flesh out - your reaction to what I had been doing, which you have clearly found alarming. The strength of your reaction was surprising to me. I guess what I was doing looks ugly to you (and to laser brain too). I offered to explain what i was doing. If you are not interested in either, I understand. Just wanted to make sure you understood what I was asking you. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I know that you already said that you are done, and that's good. I don't know that it struck me as "alarming" so much as "oh, not again!". I've had vast numbers of content disputes where I found the other editor exasperating. It's almost never useful to issue a warning on that user's talk page, unless you are actually preparing to go to WP:3RRN or WP:AE, where prior notice (of 3RR and DS, respectively) is required. All you had to do was say what you wanted to say at the article talk page. It came across as very battleground-y when you wrote that warning, and I see that the administrator considered it to have elements of harassment. Why am I particularly concerned? You came out of your most recent interaction with ArbCom with them telling you that, if there is a next time, you are looking at a site-ban. There is no shortage of editors who would be delighted to use that warning you posted as a reason to start a complaint against you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
yes that last interaction was about OUTING and to put a fence around that, the TBAN was with regard to other editors' potential/actual COI. So OUTING and COI. I have stayed far away from that. I did not bring that up nor even come close to it, in anything I wrote to him. I see now (and thanks for taking the time to reply) that where you are coming from is that OUTING is part of the harassment policy and what I was doing has been perceived as harassment. I see now. Thanks!!!! Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Even more broadly, please be careful as not coming across as battleground-y or bossy. That's really the bottom line, more so than any details of those sanctions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Obviously I can't speak for Trypto but I'm thinking that's not precisely what he's getting at, Jytdog. You know as well as I do the exact specifics of a prior warning have little bearing on how editors perceive it when it comes to applying a new sanction. Really, general antagonism is all anyone is going to see. I'm guilty of it too. I was literally going to post here to advise you to just leave it alone then I saw that last comment and unfortunately couldn't help myself. We should both take my advice above. Let other editors handle it. Capeo (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Right, thanks, that does clarify what I was trying to say. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Great, same pages all around. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Removing Comments

You may not remove comments made by another editor accept in a few rare cases. Disagreeing with the message of the comment is not one of these cases. This is inexcusable. [[4]]. EditorDownUnder (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI, EditorDownUnder started a thread about this at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jytdog removing talk pages comments based on their opinion. —C.Fred (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Medicinepedia

So far several editors have mentioned that you have a habit wherein you seem to treat wikipedia as if it is a medical journal. Its not a medical journal and we shouldn't treat it as such. Please stop that habit of yours. Its frankly quite annoying. Even topics completely unrelated to medicine end up reading as if you just stumbled upon complicated pharmacology or biochemistry once you start editing it. The primary audience of wikipedia readers are not sicence researchers, nor are they university professors who have a PHD in chemistry. Most wikipedia readers are laymen and as such wikipedia language should reflect that. If you do not alter your behavior from hence forward I will assume you lack competence in the ability to differentiate between science vs non-science topics, or the sufficient social acuity to allow yourself to extricate from health-related aspects of your occupation. Wikipedia is not medicinepedia so do not turn it into such. Thanks. Pwolit iets (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) With respect I disagree. It's surely in Wikipedia's interests to be as accurate and comprehensive as possible, especially in the medical field, primarily because of its search engine ranking giving any article such a high placement - and that includes medical terminology where relevant (I agree that for complex terms not referenced earlier in an article these should be wikilinked where possible, primarily for the benefit of laypeople reading the article - and Jytdog does this 99% of the time). Both him and Doc James - amongst others - have put a lot of time and effort into keeping the medical articles here comprehensive but in a way that's relevant to both laypeople & professional, and I for one encourage them to continue doing so. Mike1901 (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
What specific article is this about? Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Mike1901 on comprehensiveness. However where me and mike1901 disagree is how formal our language should be and to what extent we should simplify language to allow our audience to understand the content. Also, since professionals already have other resources, they shouldn't be our primary focus. Pwolit iets (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Pwolit iets you come here echoing Tomwsucler's misguided accusation at Talk:Coregasm. Not sure what to say, since you don't ask any questions of me, so I will just say: a) of course we are not medicinepedia - its a slick label but false claim (I edit lots of stuff that is not biomedical information); b) yes we are aimed at a general readership and I always try to write in WP:Plain English; c) our mission is to communicate accepted knowledge per WP:NOT - you seem to misunderstand this per your post here and at Jimbo's talk page here. What you and Tomwsulcer also don't seem to understand at the Coregasm article is that popular media is not a reliable place to find accepted knowledge about WP:Biomedical information, as well as what biomedical information is. The source guideline and the definition aren't my views - they have been established by the community. If you want to take issue with that, this is not the place to do it.
The exact boundaries of "biomedical information" can be tricky to find, and people can disagree in good faith. I have offered to discuss that here - as of last night neither you nor Tomwsulcer have responded or tried to actually discuss the specific content you would like to source from popular media nor why that is appropriate sourcing and content. I look forward to seeing your responses. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I was pinged. As the opener does not mention any diffs of concern there is not anything to follow up. But yes we should definitely be writing in easy to understand language per WP:MEDMOS. We should do this using the best avaliable sources per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Celebrity doctors

I love how each citations in the first paragraph is to one discussing the phenomenon in general, and to one discussing Dr. Oz. It made me laugh. While I know it's not synthesis, be wary of the celebriDoc fans, who will almost certainly scream "SYNTH!!!!!1!1!!!1!1oneoneone" as loud as they can when they see this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, just getting started and not ready to be live. I need to go do stuff and wanted to save my work and invite others to work on it too, so it would be well vetted when we move it to mainspace. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

BPDFamily.com

I believe your revert was made in good faith but that you did not look carefully at the neutrality edits that were made.
1. The only content change was the following and it is referenced and it is more neutral:

OLD The origin of BPDFamily.com traces back to a single-title, online book discussion group which was created after the 1998 release of Stop Walking on Eggshells - one of the first books to help family members and romantic partners identify Borderline personality disorder traits in a loved one.

NEW The origin of BPDFamily.com traces back to the AOL online support groups that provided all the case studies used in the self-help book Stop Walking on Eggshells (1998). The AOL online support groups went on to become a single-title, online book discussion group for Stop Walking on Eggshells and in 2007, were spun off by the book's author to became an independent multi-national support group.[6][7]

2. Other neutrality edits included:

Changing medical establishment to medical providers (establishment is over reaching, specific medical providers are cited in the article)
Changing organization supports and members have participated to have been involved and referenced in (replace general with specific statement as the reference support this)

3. The rest was changing the order of paragraphs without content change.

4. The COI banner was removed as provided in WP:MTR referenced on the banner itself. If the maintenance template is not fully supported. Some neutrality tags, such as Conflict of Interest (COI) and Neutral point of view (POV), require the tagging editor to initiate a dialogue (generally on the article's talk page), to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, the template can be removed.

We should assume good faith. I spent an hour looking this article. I'll hold off reverting so that you may double check the above.2602:306:8308:CAF0:29BC:1A03:B626:E87D (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

If you would put this message on the Talk page of the article, I would be happy to reply there. Thanks for being willing to discuss! Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Done

2602:306:8308:CAF0:29BC:1A03:B626:E87D (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog. I am writing this comment as you suggested I could do on my talk page.

First of all, thanks for your interest, but according to the guidelines, I think my contributions are legit and should not have been marked as spam.

"from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links [...] What can be normally linked [...] Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[4] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. [...]"

I honestly think the PDFs on material safety datasheet for cyclamic acid, cyclamate and saccharin all meet these guidelines. It's neutral, it's accurate, it's relevant to an encyclopedic understanding, etc.

There were no sections within the wikipedia articles that related to material safety, which I think is quite important (esp. regarding the controversy levels of these additives in mainstream media). This is why I didn't simply suplement the section with the information contained and added the PDF as source/reference. Do you think adding such a section would be better?

Also the PDFs provide phyisical properties and other facts that are otherwise not available in the article. I was wondering if this would qualify as too detailed for the article. This is why I didn't add them and cite the PDF as a reference (e.g. Melting point is not provided in Cyclamate or Cyclamic Acid articles but it's present in the PDFs).

I ask you to reconsider the spam classification of those PDFs and/or at least provide suggestions on how to include that relevant information in the article. Thanks. Sr.Bernat (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr.Bernat (talk • contribs) 13:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

There are many sources for technical specifications and MSDS and yes there is good information in them. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
So your suggestion is that I add similar external links but from another source? If so, which source(s) do you suggest (I don't want to be accused of spamming again...)? Or are you suggesting that I should try to extract the relevant information/contents from the MSDSs and place it in the article with a reference? Thanks! Sr.Bernat (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Before you embark on a project like this it is usually a good idea to get input from the relevant WIkiProject. How about asking the folks at WT:WikiProject Chemistry how they like the idea of adding a bunch of MSDS and tech specs to ELs of articles? And if so, where they think the best source would be? That would probably be the best place to ask. (I just took a quick look through their archives and found some past discussions - see here - you may want to review those before you ask.) Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll look into that, thanks for your help! Sr.Bernat (talk) 09:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry/Archive_3#Wikisource_MSDS it seems that the correct thing to do is to create a _(data_page) for the main Wikipedia article (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus_tribromide_(data_page) ) and then add the MSDS information there. Thanks for the tip! I think I'll do that (unless you disagree) Sr.Bernat (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
~Maybe~. That is a discussion from ten years ago and things might have changed since then. Really the best thing to do would be to ask the folks at WT:WikiProject Chemistry what they are doing these days. I am sure they will be happy that somebody is interested in updating chemical data. Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Bottom

Says published by Takeda Pharm[5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

James, no it doesn't! It says copyright Takeda, and says the drug is distributed by Takeda. I don't what the "Publisher" field is supposed to be, but I take it as the owner of the site where the document appears (is published) and in the case of that ref, the publisher is the FDA. If we were citing the URL for the label hosted on Takeda's website, I would agree that the publisher would be Takeda. See what i mean? Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah okay makes sense. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The Dietary supplement page

Hey, I saw you edited the "Dietary supplement" page. It does make a lot more sense now. I think there is some room for improvement however (isn't that always the case ;D ).

The first part of the content of the subsection called "Use as food replacement" doesn't match the title of the subsection. It looks like this section is more about disease prevention than about replacing food. Do you have a suggestion on how to fix this?

Furthermore the source for the first part of that subsection does not mention the terms "hope" or "iodine" and does talk about succeses in preventing vitamin deficiencies. This part of the article seems contain original research.

I have not looked at the other information in the subsection but it might have the same problems. Can you take a look at it again?

VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

thanks for your note - addressed via editing. If you want to discuss please repost on the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Electronic Harassment NPOV". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 September 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 06:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Unilateral page moves are not ok?

As far as I can see unilateral page moves are perfectly okay by Wikipedia:Requested moves. That page is if there is a dispute over the move or some other reason it is difficult. Are you disputing the move of scientific skepticism to skeptical movement? Dmcq (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Not OK. But see the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
It is okay. The senond sentence in the lead says
Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:
You should have given a reason for objecting to he move. Dmcq (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Partially my fault. Already in 2014 I should have formally requested the move or just have done it, in line with WP:BRD. The move was in line with policy. But: I should have waited longer after stating "Lets do it then" on the talk page. Polentarion Talk 09:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban for Jed Stuart

I really think it's time to request a topic ban for Jed Stuart. Do you agree? If so, a simple "yes" will be enough. If I can find a couple of good editors who agree, I'll start an ANI thread requesting it and post a link back here. If you don't agree, please let me know why. Thanks, MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed Topic ban of user:Jed Stuart from editing articles related to conspiracy theories. Thank you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahem.

Don't climb the Reichstag. You seem to be taking the "celebrity doctor" thing way too personally. As long as there's a solid source which explicitly identifies the person as a celebrity doctor, then fine, but I checked the Baer source and didn't see that term anywhere (feel free to point me to it); your revert was tetchy and basically invoked WP:ITSOBVIOUS. You know better than that. Guy (Help!) 00:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

If you mean this revert i added a ref. If you mean Wakefield I did find your comment there dismissive. As I noted I am not going to argue to include it there but I did explain why i think it should be. No Reichstag climbing here! Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Electronic Harassment NPOV, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

undid your reversion of my edit to Genentech

Your edit comment was not civil or appreciated ... not helpful to say an edit is "weird" at all - your opinion of "weirdness" is plain irrelevant. Quotes are there due to quoting the source ... not scare quotes. This is also not trivia ... in my opinion. Do not re-revert or I'll consider it an act of bad faith -- let someone else take it down, if anyone else is so sensitive. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

hm. pls see the talk page Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Greger

We clashed, and no offence meant in my perhaps harsh edit summary. I was reading the talk in horror, and frankly commend your approach there. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Not "perhaps" - very harsh. And wrong. That content was derived from the source and the source is right there. You can object on other grounds but your edit note is... bad on about every level. I have reverted again as your justification was invalid. If you feel the mention of the divorce is UNDUE or something, please raise the issue on the talk page. It is here or there for me - as I said it made sense out of he ended up in NY. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
My edit summary was based on fact, or rather, lack of on your part. Why are you so cranky about this - were innocuous initial edit, and now look how people are upset. Try harder to distinguish between friend and foe. If you want to make claims of divorce based ion Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page)."

The only thing I can think of would be changing "human fetal DNA from aborted babies" to "recombinant human albumin" or "human albumin", or "WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts", or "MRC-5 cells", or "human diploid cell cultures (WI-38)", or any of the various ways they explain it, but ultimately, you are still talking about human aborted fetal cells. I didn't add the guinea pig DNA that is in varicella, because that isn't in as much. But between the others I listed above, you get all the main methods of DNA in vaccines.

Thank you in advance for your reply.

References

69.78.235.130 (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This is the same thing you wrote at User talk:Edgar181 under the IP User:199.74.155.50, and I replied there. Took me a while to find it as you are IP-hopping. You should post this to the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


I don't have the ability to control my IP address. Whether I am on my work machine at home, or on it on VPN at home, or at work, or on the VPN at work, it varies, and I can't control that IP change. I misunderstood your statement then. I was under the impression you were saying to put this on your talk page. I misunderstood though, as now you are saying to put this under the article talk page instead. Sorry for the confusion. But my original confusion still stands, as all I stated was fact. So deleting facts seem counter-intuitive for Wikipedia.... But I will bring it to the article talk page and see if someone wants to discuss how facts are not to be stated on this Vaccine page...47.185.111.92 (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I didn't mean to impute any fault when I said "IP hopping" - just means that what you are doing cannot be traced via your contribs. You should consider creating an account, btw - then the issues go away. Please bear in mind that WP content depends on sources, and for content about health like this, the source needs to comply with WP:MEDRS Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


Great to know about the IP hopping, I don't mean to be doing it, and I completely realize that makes it all hard to trace.... I was thinking about making an account, but if everytime I update some facts, they get removed, it makes me hesitant to even try harder to help more..... Hope that makes sense.... And I guess a dumb question, but wouldn't the CDC's own information be compliant with WP:MEDRS? I guess I assumed that since the CDC is a source cited on the Vaccine page already, that that would be a place you would want information from. I just took a short, incomplete sentence, and expanded it to give facts. I assumed that would be a quick and easy approval and would stay as fact. I was shocked it was removed so quickly.... 47.185.111.92 (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems that the point of your edit is to mention abortion. The CDC doesn't say anything about that. Jytdog (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

My 3RR warning

A lesson in diplomacy and dodging dogshit, with humor! Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Your fourth diff there was very smart - resolving the issue by stepping back. Good on you for that. But you are too heavy handed in removing content sometimes. I appreciate your work cleaning out unsourced/badly sourced gunk very, very much, but please be mindful that you are too heavy handed sometimes. You have heard that from me, Doc James and some others. Please be mindful of that feedback. Please. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Chiro education

Apologies if you thought I was beginning a personal attack, I had quite honestly thought you already went there with your comment to QG. I guess the manner in which it was written was misconstrued in my mind. Would appreciate a response to my questions posed on the talk page at your convenience. Thanks :) Semmendinger (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

that is a very kind of you. i replied there. Jytdog (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, I do not see the relevant explanation in WP:ELNO regarding "one" external link per country. Can you paste it here. Wrigleygum (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy to discuss on the article talk page - please ask there. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Jytdog, you did a nice job cleaning up the paragraph on Carbamazepine today. I only had time to move the one sentence, but I like your changes to the paragraph. I appreciate your edits and feedback so far on my wikipedia editing. JenOttawa (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! Jytdog (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit War

I met with the staff on irc, they agreed my edit was valid. Please contact them regarding this matter. Twillisjr (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, and who ever you interacted with was wrong. Did you get their username? Please provide that here.
Also did you read WP:MEDREV as I suggested here? Please do reply about that there. Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

Nice catch

[6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Blatant copyvio

This edit is a copyvio of this pubmed abstract. I'm not sure where to report this in order to redact the edit, but I know you've reported copyvios in the past, so can you take care of this? I'd appreciate it. Best regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I put the template:copyvio-revdel on it and used the template:uw-copyvio-new on the IP editor's talk page. Thanks for catching it! Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for getting into your conversation. Do we have to put this template whenever a copyright infringement is eliminated? I have withdrawn some copyvios during last months, the last one few days ago, but I did not know this procedure. What should I do?
Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 16:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I ~ think~ we should always revdel but I only do it when it is relatively straightforward/recent or very big. if i find an old one that is all tangled in the edit history I don't do it. But maybe someone who is wise and watches this page will give the right answer. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your answer. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 21:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of this! I'll make a note of that template for future reference. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

CTCT new sources

I've added some additional sources to "that topic" for your review and split the section into a new topic for newer sources to avoid confusion. Hope I didn't wreck it. If I did, pls adjust as needed. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Johnvr4 (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you are doing or thinking on that page but you probably need to try and explain it. Johnvr4 (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello Jytdog,
Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

Edit-Warring Notice

If you think so, bring this to ANI. Each event is separate and I see you have a loud history yourself. And provide better reasons, instead of "let it be".

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Singapore 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrigleygum (talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center

You removed a list of notable faculty for being unsourced. What part do you think needs a source? The fact that they are faculty? The only faculty listed are those with wikipedia articles, and their profiles show that they are faculty at Hutch. Natureium (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

A wikilink is not a reference - in fact you cannot use another WP article as a reference per WP:CIRCULAR. Please provide citations. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Content deletions?

Me and you recently had a minor skirmish in article Gammaretrovirus over deleted material. Some of the material was unsourced, and some was sourced only by a source you deemed not reliable, so you deleted both source and supported text. We're over that. However, I screened your contributions over the past year or so, and noticed a pattern of deleting article text. Even 'additions' to articles were things like Request for Deletion notices. In fact, I found very few actual contributions by you. It's a disturbing pattern. A large portion of the encyclopedia is unsourced text. It's a global malady, one we live with every day. It's hard to build, easy to destroy.

Deleting another editor's work is likely to cause resentment, may get reverted, and could ultimately result in an edit war. The template:unreferenced sortta sums it up: Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Before summary removal (other than for copyvio, BLP, etc), it is better to 1)tag it as unsourced or dubious, etc (i.e. 'challenge'); or 2)notify the offending editor to source it; 3)enter your concerns on the talk page to get consensus for removal; 4)source it yourself, if you can (very helpful, actually), 5)wait and do nothing, especially if the material is relatively new (wait for editor to source it); 6) if the material is unsourced because it is dubious or actually false, maybe you can fix it, whether you are able to source it or not. Some whole articles are entirely unsourced. I once deleted one, and immediately got reversed by an administrator with a warning for WP:BLANK. Other times, I blanked a section, and apparently got immediately reversed by someone's (administrator?) bot for WP:NOBLANKING, even though the section was wholly unsourced. We can't and probably shouldn't arbitrarily delete text, even fragments WP:PRESERVE.

If you know anything about gammaretrovirus, simian immunodeficiency virus, or lentivirus, a contribution would be greatly appreciated. These are pretty much skeletons.

Sbalfour (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

"In fact, I found very few actual contributions by you." You are kidding, right? Roxy the dog. bark 22:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for expressing your thoughts. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

ANI South Beach diet discussion

Hang on, man. I don't think anyone was trying to dismiss your original claims. I know I wasn't. Unfortunately, I myself don't know if I have access to the source involved, so I might not be able to verify whether it substantiates the particular phrasing as written. If it does, then there is definitely a case for removing material cited to a high quality source without sufficient cause. But it would help if we in fact knew the phrasing was clearly supported by the source. John Carter (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry if you took that like i was unhappy with your response. you were correct! I will clarify that and the issue at ANi. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with you

Agree with you about your analysis here [7].

User has now twice used Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to violate WP:FORUMSHOP and cast aspersions in unrelated cases at [8] and [9].

Not sure as to your prior background with the user but these appear to be the wrong places and times to attempt to personally attack me and cast aspersions in unrelated reports.

I'm really not sure what's the best action to take with regard to this. Sagecandor (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

DS are in place to create a straight line to AE when people consistently violate community standards for behavior on a topic with DS. If you file a case at AE make sure your own nose is clean enough as your behavior will be looked at. If you file a case it would be wise to first spend some time looking through the archives to see what is expected, what works, and what doesn't work. Which is also useful for clearing your own head and letting your own emotions cool down if they are stirred up. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
This explains some of what's going on here. Sagecandor (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Just in case

Since I am very sick and might not get the chance to tell you this in the future, I just want you to know that I greatly appreciate you supporting me the way that you have. I know that you are more so supporting the guidelines and policies that I support, and I respect that even more. I know that I probably sometimes get on your nerves because even though I am strict with sourcing, according to some editors' standards, I'm not as strict as you are. But just know that you are one of the editors I hold in the highest regard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I am so so sorry flyer for what you are going through and so grateful for your vigilance. thank you for this kind note. there are no words. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Silicon Alley". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 25 December 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 07:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Slowly

I've been slowly going through months of archived discussions at WT:RS, and I've finally finished reading Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 53 on "Churnalism". I don't know if it's gotten any further, but I had a few ideas about how to approach the issue, without directly changing the guideline:

  • Consider updating WP:USEPRIMARY to give a lightly edited press release as an example at LINKSINACHAIN. ("Cosmetic changes" might be a useful way of describing it.) That might get people off the "an independent editor approved it, so it's secondary" problem.
  • Create Wikipedia:Identifying press releases to help people figure out how to identify press releases that are masquerading as news stories (most importantly, by finding a copy of the original press release online). I've seen problems in both directions with this (both unfairly assuming that material comes from a press release and also assuming that nothing does).
  • Help people figure out when such re-printed press releases are acceptable (e.g., verifying the dates of the opera's annual gala) and when they're not (e.g., proving that 'the world at large' cared about this product/company/person).

Do any of these appeal to you? I have particular hopes for the middle one: if nothing else, it might save us the trouble of re-re-re-typing the same explanations.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting! I will consider doing the 2nd. Thanks!! Jytdog (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Haven't memorized MEDRS yet

...but I am pretty sure you have (a good thing). How about this: [10] Barbara (WVS) (talk)

That is a link to a table of contents. which article in particular? Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hyoscine

Hi Jytdog. I have reworked my previous edit in Hyoscine page. Now I have added references (extracted from the catalan version of the page: burundanga) to support my statement. Unfortunately I cannot place a reference on my previous statement that Hospital Clinic of Barcelona has never found a trace of burundanga = scopolamine = hyoscine because this is personal communication of a friend in charge of the analytical lab, as I wrote in my first edit. I hope the new way to explain that most of the associations of scopolamine to crime are hoaxes or urban legends is sufficient for Wikipedia standards. If it is not, then I would ask to consider deleting the last paragraph of section 9.4 as it is only based on a newspaper biased information that does not consider the information delivered by the Hospital Clínic of Barcelona (the article says, literally <<“The problem lies in certifying it; you reach the conclusion based more on the victim’s stories than on what you can scientifically prove, which unfortunately is little,” says Dr Manel Santiñà.>>). In fact, the same article collects contradictory information about its absorption through skin, and the cited reference in Madrid hospitals refers to drugs in general being used in robbery or rape, not specifically scopolamine.Xaranda (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Would you please put that on the relevant article's Talk page so everybody who watches that page can consider it? I'll reply there. Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Daniels in non-deliberate disarray this December

Hiya jyt, happy holidays and all that. I think you mixed up Daniel Case with the intended name here [11]. Cheers - Brianhe (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Silicon Alley, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Thanks. not unexpected, but i wanted to try that. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Flagged as Advertisement: Jordan Fung

Please quote parts that may contain "advertisements" in the page Jordan Fung, and help improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirleytao (talk • contribs) 04:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The whole thing is terrible. Read any other biography in WP. Fixing it will take hours. Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

ECT

I actually figured it out by accident. I came across ECT, and it looked pretty legit. I started writing up a Wiki article about it, but as I looked further into it, things didn't match up. Their "about" page advertised that they were some huge company, but I found out they've got less than 50 employees, and just a few million in revenue. The CEO is some obscure guy, who runs a similar network just like it, called NewsFactor. ECT is allegedly out of California (office is a bank), while NewsFactor is allegedly out of Florida. After digging into it quite a bit, realized they shouldn't be on the Wikiz. KnowledgeBattle (Talk) | GodlessInfidel ︻╦╤── 07:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

nice catch, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Fad diets pseudoscience?

I note the first sentence of the above article includes a link to pseudoscience, but there doesn't seem to be any sort of indication on the talk page as to whether the existing ArbCom rulings apply to this subject or not. Maybe it might make sense to go to ARCA for clarification as to whether the topic qualifies? John Carter (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

interesting question. fad diets are generally marketed with bad science, but there is a range of bad science, from exaggerated claims (super common) to outright pseudoscience, Like we just had some fuss at the Michael Greger article... he urges people to go vegan (but definitely leaves room for just a plant-based diet!) and there is no doubt that a plant-based diet is 100% mainstream eating advice... but in the course of doing that he commonly exaggerates the dangers of meat. On the other hand you have stuff like Dr. Oz and his freaking coffee beans which is pure woo pseudoscience and notions like "energy" in the raw food movement (a belief that "energy" from the sun stored in plants is lost by cooking and you should eat things raw and fresh (it is a form of muddle-headed vitalism) (overcooking things does reduce nutritional value, and nutrients are lost the longer things sit around, not to mention rot... but that is not what the raw food movement is about))
so there are some subtleties to it.
but would it be useful to make an intentional effort to ask the community bring "fad diets" explicitly under PSCI DS? Hm. i think maybe. Interested in what folks who watch this page think... Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there's overlap between fad diets and pseudoscience (and indeed altmed), but it's not 1:1. I agree it would be good to have fad diets (broadly construed) explicitly under DS. Alexbrn (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
yes the altmed DS might be better... it is half dozen of one and six of the other. probably cam is better and arguably fad diets are already under those DS. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
If they all qualify as one or the other, more or less by definition(?), then I don't think the Arbs would necessarily have any objections to implementing DS, maybe as a separate topic given the overlap one way or another. John Carter (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
disruptions at these articles tend to sporadic and local, busting out to greater or lesser extents then dying down. They are however regular and people do act badly ... people are passionate about food and about health (one of the best books talks about "diet cults").
Sometimes the spikes are driven by off-wiki stuff, like the recent small uptick (which came shortly after a sustained huge bump) at the Greger article, which was driven by this reddit thread. Sometimes it is one person who comes around sporadically, which is what happens at South Beach Diet. It is not Arbcom level stuff generally; at least it hasn't been yet. I got frustrated enough with one person's behavior to file the recent ANI case (which the community met with a shrug, mostly) maybe having DS would take care of that kind of issue more simply. I was thinking about trying to get some kind of DS implemented at the great big bump we went through at Greger (which SageRad came in at the tail end of, and exacerbated some)
So there are two steps to this, right? First is definitional: stating that topic or article X falls under available DS on topic Y. Second is implementing: placing some restriction on the editing of a specific article (e.g 1RR for everybody) or person (e.g TBAN from topic Y or article X), by any admin who takes the initiative or through a filing at AE.
you are suggesting, i think, that somebody goes to WP:A/R/C&A and gets step 1 done - namely asking for a clarification of whether CAM (or PSCI perhaps) DS should be available to fad diet topics, just to make the availability of DS unambiguous to keep people on best behavior via DS alerts. Right? Here are links to the CAM DS and to the PSCI DS (see #14)... hm. So you and Alexbrn seem to be leaning yes. Let's see if anybody else weighs in on "good idea to get this done or not". Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
There has been some previous discussion about the boundary between diets that are and diets that are not pseudoscience, that grew out of discussions about categories for Vani Hari. The discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 16#Category:Diet advocates led clumsily to the creation of Category:Diet food advocates (and that reminds me: Category talk:Diet food advocates#weird title). I then spun off Category:Pseudoscientific diet advocates. So there are fad diets that are pseudoscience, and fad diets that are simply fads (or something like that). I would imagine that the DS would apply specifically to the subset where secondary sources say that they are pseudoscience. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks that is helpful! CAM DS should cover them all tho yes? Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
That's a tough question. It's always prudent to err on the side of assuming that DS do apply. However, was the guy who started Kellogg's Corn Flakes pseudoscientific, or just idiosyncratic, at least by the standards of his era? Or Graham Crackers? I'd say that you would have to be very clear that the diet is a fad diet rather than just a diet, in order to apply these DS. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Prod

Hi, please note I am just going through and checking every prod ( over 800) incase it may appear I was stalking, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

We are good, thanks. sorry i misread your prod on the science festival. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Article edits

My name is Alison Berges and I am General Counsel for PetMed Express, Inc., d/b/a 1-800-PetMeds. In September, 2016 the article PetMed_Express was deleted by Wikipedia editor Randykitty for allegedly not meeting “notability requirements.” When we contested the removal of the article with the Wikipedia editor, the page was reinstated.

Recently we discovered that you made wholesale changes to the Wikipedia article for no discernible or legitimate reason given the article was factually correct in all regards and conformed entirely to Wikipedia standards. Your changes amount to an unfair smear campaign of our company. While we understand the Wikipedia article is not something we “own” we nonetheless question the motives behind the wholesale changes to our page and are hereby formally asking that our page be reverted to its original state prior to the deletion noted above.

AB GenC (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Randykitty and Alexbrn.
Hi Alison. First, please do read the link provided by Alexbrn. Second, I am not going to fully accept that you are who say you are, since we have no way of knowing. Third, based on everything you did when you wrote here, and what you wrote, it is pretty clear that you don't understand much about WP at all, so your representation that it "conformed entirely to Wikipedia standards" isn't very compelling. All that said, we discuss articles at the relevant article's talk page. If you have any questions about any edit I made, please post them there, and I would be happy to answer them there, which is the same thing I would say to anybody. And please do ask; this doesn't have to be adversarial. regards Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Your user page: NPOV part I

I just wanted you to know that this seems to me to be a remarkably clear explanation not only of WP policies and their application to editing, but of some seldom-understood aspects of the practice of science. I have some insight into some of those kinds of things, but I learned from reading your explanations, and wanted to say thanks for that. Have you ever thought of turning it into a WP essay? I think it would be of benefit if these insights could be shared as widely as possible with the WP community. Evensteven (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Glad you found it helpful, and thanks for letting me know. The WP:Why MEDRS? essay grew (monstrously) out of this. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see! Glad to see it's already been put to practical use. I had had thoughts of a context that was more generally scientific. I know nothing about medecine, but I make forays as I am able into things such as astronomy and history of science - even into physics a couple of times! And, of course, in Christianity, where there are all sorts of opinions about science that are pure rot. Makes me wish for a "monster" to guard our door, too! ;-) Evensteven (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Hm yes i see what you are saying. a generalized version could be useful. i will play with that! Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Hey, that would be great! Thanks! Evensteven (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Megathon7 (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Virtual Library museums pages

Some juicy COI editing here. I lack the time (and frankly, also the energy) to look deeper into this. Perhaps you feel like looking into it. --Randykitty (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't address any COI issues but can look at promotional editing. Jytdog (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
In this case it's both, I guess. Sorry, I now remember seeing the earlier brouhaha about COI and you being blocked, but forgot about the topic ban. Too bad. Drop me a note if you're going to appeal this after the 6-month waiting period (I don't think it's canvassing if I ask you for this :-) --Randykitty (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Jytdog. You have new messages at DiverDave's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Clarification on descriptive statements about primary sources

Hi Jytdog. Regarding your edit on Ageing, I would be interested in additional clarification of this policy from WP:OR:

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

I had intended to remain within these limits, describing rather than interpreting the viewpoints I included. Could you tell me how I crossed the line? Thanks. ~ Peter1c (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Generally, please have a look at this, then let's talk more, if that is OK. Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog. Thanks for your reply. This is a really clear and articulate description of the policy and its justification. Reading it again, I see why my addition wasn't really encyclopedic style. Thanks again. ~ Peter1c (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thanks for talking! Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Why deleting pages?

@Jytdog:, no need to clutter up the OA page with what can be a discussion between us. When you mention the pages getting "fucked up" and then you seem to have deleted/redirected several of my recent new pages, it might be that you think that it is my activity contributing to the fucking. So, why don't you want to have the ability to add details for ASU, SKI 360, gitadyl or any of the other additions to their own page?Sthubbar (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Things should become more clear tomorrow. Two of the supplement were ~maybe~ marginally notable, and gitadyl was not - zero MEDRS sources for it. Pls be patient. Jytdog (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism: continuously removing content from article

Information icon Hello, I'm Ftc-jordan. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Smartglasses have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

You should be careful about what you call "vandalism", especially when your account is a WP:SPA promoting one person in WP. Jytdog (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I have added a new citation which is the product featured by the official Government of Hong Kong: https://www.eitp.gov.hk/en/showcase/pedosa-glass-won-several-awards

Please discuss on the article talk page per WP:BRD. Jytdog (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Your change of Sabaic

You changed Sabaic into South Arabic (There is no such thing as south Arabic), on the el page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)

The Arabic language only uses the word Ilah while in Sabaic it uses 'l ( Beeston, A. F. L. Sabaic Dictionary: English, French, Arabic. Louvain-la-Neuve: Editions Peeters, 1982. Print.). That is why I changed it, and you reverted it back may I know why? Yoseph Hakohen (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

references are not optional. If you want to correct what you see as an error, you need to cite a reliable source. See WP:BURDEN Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Your edits to Do it yourself biology

I disagree with your edits to Do it yourself biology as spam. However I do agree that my citation source was poor quality. Please see my revised citation from O'Reilly Radar and let me know if you still consider this to be spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcrwizard (talk • contribs) 07:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Would this be a better reference? https://backchannel.com/diybio-comes-of-age-4a5b15d1131f Pcrwizard (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a little better but still pretty poor. i did a search here and found nothing better. Maybe try proposing the content and that source on the article Talk page, and see what folks there think...Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

Can you tell me a bit about why a revision by me was undone by you in the Schizophrenia article? It was a minor revision, adding in a citation from the journal Schizophrenia Bulletin to further support the statement that "Some people do recover completely and others function well in society." You marked the edit as spam and undid the revision—perhaps because I'm the author of the article I'd added—but I'm really not sure. Was this your rationale? Is it really spam, considering that Schizophrenia Bulletin is the top schizophrenia journal? Please consider changing the edit back, if there really is nothing wrong with it, or explaining a bit more about your rationale, so I can learn from the experience? Thanks so much and good wishes for the new year!! Daniel Helman (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Generally for content about health, we use citations that are literature reviews or statements from major medical or scientific bodies -- this is described in the guideline, WP:MEDRS. This is the standard for sourcing health content for a lot of reasons, which are described in the essay (that I originally drafted) , WP:Why MEDRS?. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Your edits to Ionis Pharmaceuticals

Hi @Jytdog:

I very much appreciate your attention to Ionis Pharmaceuticals. In my view the Ionis Pharmaceuticals article should focus on the commercial entity and not tell the stories of individual products; these would be better placed under respective drug articles and wikilinked to if needed.

Instead, you seem to have copied content from drug articles into this one (also failing to properly attribute it).

Also, you have reverted my edits and restored a factually incorrect version (with misleading description of product pipeline). Any reason for not using e.g. sandbox?

As I am also interested in bringing up this article to a better standard, I suggest we work out a good version on article's talk page. — kashmiri TALK 02:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you polite enough to respond to the above, or you are only able to post templates on my Talk page? — kashmiri TALK 04:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
We can discuss the content at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Chill out

I'll be the first to hat disruptive comments, but you're pushing the boundaries of TPO, and otherwise generally acting BITEY for no real reason. TimothyJosephWood 17:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing in that comment about improving article content. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Cochlear implant

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at WP:MEDRS 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 are 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.

I don't agree with you. We know about cochlear implants. Many facts are already checked with research. It will explain how did worked with processsor. but you haven't expenineced with deaf world. We do worked with many articles. you don't read this warning. Edwtie (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Deaf community

I have THREE important qusation!

1. Are you expeciened with Deaf community?
2. Do you know about this issues of this commuity?
3. Cochlear implant is NOT easy for this groups of deaf cultures. That's why that I will do for deaf communities and community of cochlear users. it must be BALANCE between two communities. Do you know this isuses?

Edwtie (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how WP works. No editor has personal authority here. I have no idea if you are deaf, have a PhD, or are some 14 year old kid in Bulgaria sending fake news into the world, and I have no way of knowing, and it doesn't matter. The way this "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" works, is that we build content based on what reliable sources say, and we cite those sources. We discuss content and sources based on WP's policies and guidelines. For health matters, reliable sources are described in WP:MEDRS and for everything else, WP:RS is the relevant guideline. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I have already edit dutch articles and some english articles since 2004 wikipedia user. I know this many but cochlear implant is NPOV article. We are trying keep to neutrality article! I am ICT enigneer and I am deaf and CI user. Please wait before I will edit this article because CI is not always suitable for ALL deaf poeple. That's why. Edwtie (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
If MEDRS sources say that, then that is fine to add. Content must be based on reliable sources. What "NPOV" means in WP, is that WP:WEIGHT in articles reflects the WEIGHT given in reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
yes. but i know. you must need time. I will worked this articles. Edwtie (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
OK. Please add the citations when you add the content. See WP:BURDEN. Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
yes I will do. I need more time to found articles. because I know about this COchleair. Do you tell to another wikipedia users? I have found infographica but the user have stolen this article from Wikipedia. I agree it. but I have older articles in 2012 from wikipedia. History has been vandalismed by another users I will revent this History subarticle. Edwtie (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
your english here is too garbled for me to understand. In the future please go slow and edit in small bits and make sure everything is supported by reliable sources per WP:MEDRS or WP:RS, as is relevant. I suggest you propose edits on the Talk page, instead of making them directly, and again, go slow and listen to other editors. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Nobody have added this sources into articles, but I will create sandbox of Cochlear implant. Edwtie (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
There are good things and bad things about that. It will reduce drama at the article which is good, but please somehow mark what you change so that it is easy for others to review. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
yes I have read a article of cochleair implant from 2012. it's best version of cochlear implant. I have added some words to make clear. Because cochlear implant is not suitable for any deaf people. I will divided a group deaf into prelingual deaf and postlingual deaf. It make more clear why do prelingual deaf adults used not with a cochlear implant. it must more clear article and neutrality. And development of cochlear implant will be later soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwtie (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

rolfing mediation

Hi, I know you've been a part of discussions on the rolfing wiki in the past. == Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Rolfing. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Cyintherye (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Meridian (Chinese Medicine)

Hi Jytdog!

I'm hoping you might be able to explain your decision to edit 2600:1004:b12c:83b8:9ccd:fdc9:2d04:641f's content under a claim of "neutrality." I'm just wondering if you could identify specifically what WASN'T neutral about the previous editor's text, which was as follows: "Acupuncture points and meridians belong to a system of medicine that has been in use and evolving for thousands of years. The science of Chinese medicine has a different basis than the concepts which underpin Western science. Much of the Western research exploring acupuncture points and potential benefits from a Western scientific framework are newly emerging. Larger and more diverse randomized control trials (RCT) are needed to prove the medicine within this framework, yet it is a deeply studied and advanced medical form within its own scientific framework."

All of these statements are in line with neutrality, and none make any claims whatsoever of the efficacy of the modality, which is, I think, what you're really concerned with. I would strongly encourage you to reconsider your stance on these statements, as there is truly nothing there that indicates any levels of success of the treatments. The statements only indicate that Chinese medicine does not share the same framework as Western science, and I truly hope you understand that the Western scientific (and particularly medical) framework is only one of many. If you strongly want to maintain your obvious biases in the editing of this article, perhaps you could consider rewording the phrasing by simply replacing "medicine" with "therapy"; that way, you can maintain the supposed authority of Western medicine while still informing Wikipedia's readers that acupuncture has a long history that is often understood as incompatible with Western medicine. Examining whether acupuncture is effective or not is not the goal of this article; Wikipedia articles are intended to inform audiences of the context of a given subject.

Thanks!

Interrobangette (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about articles should take place at the article Talk page, so that other interested editors can participate and so that it is included in the record of that article. If you would just copy your comment there, I will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Multisystemic therapy

Hi, with regards the Multisystemic therapy page, I was hoping you could elaborate on how the refs in the article fail WP:MEDRS. Thank you. Samjjjones (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, here was the diff where you added content. Before we start, have you read the WP:MEDDEF section and do you understand what a secondary source is, as defined there? Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Near-death experience "discussion"

I wouldn't lose any more sleep over the current thread if I were you, some editors just don't get Wikipedia. It will all explode when Smkolins tries to update the article, no hurry. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — kashmiri TALK 18:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing maintenance templates

Hi there! Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for a guide on the addition and removal of maintenance templates. Because you are currently involved in a dispute, you shouldn't tamper with notices relating to that dispute. Don't get distracted: I'm not your enemy here. Ibadibam (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no valid dispute. If you have a stance on the issue state it on the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jytdog reported by User:Ibadibam (Result: ). Thank you. Ibadibam (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I have closed this with no action. Thanks. --Neutralitytalk 02:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Ibadibam (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I greatly respect your efforts in medical and religious articles. MEDRES is close to voodoo to me and I'm glad there are people like you around. Thanks. Adam in MO Talk 05:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thanks! if you want to me walk you through it i would be happy to. no great magic really. :) Jytdog (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
That sounds good. I'm in UTC -6, so it is pretty late for me. If you drop some links here I'll take a look at them tomorrow and get back to you. I'm relatively good with peer reviewed journals (Science, Nature PhilTrans, NEJOM), so perhaps that gives me a head start. Thanks for your time.--Adam in MO Talk 05:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh OK! So MEDRS says use literature reviews or statements by major medical/scientific bodies. You know that pubmed has a filter so that it will give you only reviews, right? The hardest part is getting access to papers. So that first one is simple to find and harder to get. For things with public health relevance, major medical/scientific authorities like WHO, CDC, NIH, NHS Choices all often have stuff on their websites. Takes a bit more trawlig to find but almost always free. Then it is just a matter of reading everything you find and soaking it in to generate truly NPOV content. If you need help with pubmed let me know but my sense is that you already know about it.  :) Jytdog (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, You reverted my edit and asked how it was related: [12]

Simply really, it's a more ecological alternative to fish meal (fish meal is made from other fish, to feed fish (FIFO)) so it makes a big impact on the sea's eacosystem. Maggots however can be grown on meat (that has passed sell-by date) and offal, so has no impact whatsoever. KVDP (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing in the Maggot article about their use in acquaculture... Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced Content - Diphenhydramine

Jytdog, I completely understand your message and the reasons for it: I accept full responsibility for the edit, which I think we both agree should never have been made. I am not sure if you have checked, but, as soon as I realized that the edit had actually gone through - about 3-4 hours afterwards - I immediately reverted the page back to its original state prior to my interference. If this was also unacceptable or, worse, inflamed the issue, I can only apologize once again, and reassure you that much more care will be taken in the future. I have been contributing (mostly minor) edits to Wikipedia for a number of years now, and they have been by and large well-received. This was a genuinely unusual error for me, but that does not detract from the fact that it was a result of my own carelessness. Once again, I can only apologize, and hope that this brings the issue to a close. Best Regards, Ash (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

ok, thanks! btw i looked and have not yet found a MEDRS ref that Diphenhydramine can cause restless leg... will look some more. Jytdog (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
i looked more and didn't find any. Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions

Why? the edits I made were an attempt to at least try and improve a badly sources article with additional material. I really fail to see why Discretionary Sanctions were needed, I have not attempted to re-insert the material, nor argued for it's inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

There are discretionary sanctions on the topic of pseudoscience in WP; the topic of Places of power falls with that topic. I notified you of that. That's all. No one has implemented any DS on that topic, but the presence of DS makes AE available, and other expedited ways of dealing with problems. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, I just wanted to try and rescue a page whose very nature is what I tend to use Wikipedia for (as a resource to look up the silly and facile). I would rather we had more pages like this (A one stop for the bizarre) then 100 pages on stuff I already have books on. But sadly it seems I am rather on my own in this. I know I have seen this term (Places of power) 100's of times, but all in the kind of source you would dismiss.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
we have lots of articles about notable pseudoscience topics but they are treated as such. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Edits to AV-101

I would like to discuss the revisions you made to my edits to AV-101. My edits were made in a response to a request on 12/5/16 to update, i.e. "Needs updating. Notice the study says it has yet to begin (in 2015) but we're almost in 2017". I was not trying to advertise a clinical trial, rather to be factual that the trial HAD started, and the identifier was provided as the reverence to that fact. In the last edit i made, which you deleted, I also think that it is highly relevant to provide two important conclusions from the Zanos peer reviewed publication in JPET. Would you think this is a better wording:

"Recent preclinical studies have confirmed that 4-chlorokynurenine has rapid ketamine-like antidepressant activity in multiple models of depression.[1]. Other than the NMDAR, neither AV-101 or 7-Cl-KYNA, its active metabolite, had pharmacologically significant binding to any of the 50 G-protein coupled receptors, ion channels and transporters tested.[1]"

Note that this clearly indicates "preclinical" and animal models. It does not state that it has human antidepressant activity.

I look forward to you comment.

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Zanos was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

--GC2013 (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! If you'll copy your comment to the article talk page, i'll reply there. discussion about content should be centralized so everybody who watches the article can participate and so it is in the record for the article. thx Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

What?

The article for that was over a decade old...I was finding new sources, whats with the filling a report?Petergstrom (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Updating articles is good. Your behavior at that article has been unacceptable. Seven different experienced MED editors are disagreeing with you, and your trying to bulldoze past that is the wrong approach - it hurts you, and that hurts everybody. You have been doing some good work so I am sorry it came to this. I guess you need a block to get you to see that you need to stop ignoring other people who know what they are doing. Jytdog (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jytdog/Archive_19&oldid=1235456353"