User talk:Jytdog/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Jytdog,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to see it

I just realized from your recent edit to your user page that the startup company you've been involved with may have gone out of business. I'm genuinely sorry to hear it. If you don't want to discuss it here, that's fine, but I felt that I should leave you a note. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Yep, dead dog. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you already know this, but it's awfully hard to get these things off the ground, and there's a pretty high failure rate, so you're in good company. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep. :) Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Singapore independence DRN

Hello, I have opened a DRN case regarding a Singapore discussion you participated in. If you wish, feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Singapore#Sovereignty. Best, CMD (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Advice

Hey Jytdog, I hate to put you on the spot but I have encountered an issue and was wondering if I could get some advice.Petergstrom (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

that is the WP:Boomerang - pretty unsurprising based on you bringing the ANI with dirty hands and behaving the way you did there, arguing instead of listening. Folks are looking at you now. The worst thing you can do is go there and argue more. If you want to do something, go back to the ANI and read every response you got there, and think about those responses. If you can hear what folks have been saying to you about your behavior, post a note in a new subsection below the TBAN motion and let folks you know what you heard, and what you intend to do about it with respect to your own behavior. What you write needs to be about you, not about anybody else. That, or do nothing. That's my advice, fwiw. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I tried to take your advice...but I finally couldn't stand it. The thing I don't understand his how my first edits didnt demonstrate newbie behavior. I remember one time you told me that many new people misinterpret the primary source policy...just like I did.Petergstrom (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

That dif is broken. But if you mean this yeah that was foolish. There are some "preconceived notions" (e.g. flyer has a reputation and is well respected and highly valued as someone who keeps perverts from skewing content about pedophilia and who does other great work here too. everybody knows that they are too harsh sometimes too). but with respect to you, because you are new here, people are looking at a) how you have behaved in the past, as demonstrated by diffs and b) how you are behaving at the ANI itself. Not "pre-conceived notions" but evidence.

Listen - please listen. Wikipedia is created and maintained by a community. People come here thinking it is The Internetz and behave like they would on some forum somewhere. They don't understand that Wikipedia is a community and the patterns of behavior you establish matter. How you treat other people matters. Although nobody here knows your RW identity, who you are -- your character -- gets expressed very clearly here and is actually demonstrable with diffs.

Wikipedia is a laboratory of human behavior. You write something and it is recorded forever in the history. People can go find diffs and tell a story about you with them. (one of the skills of long term members is knowing how to do that, and also knowing when someone is doing that to a tell a bullshit story)

Watching ANI is fascinating. Very often, people come there accusing person X of doing Y, and when other editors start looking at actual behavior, it turns out that the OP was causing huge problems and had no self-understanding. This happens all the time. It is not uncommon for both editors to have been doing bad stuff, and neither has any clue of their own behavior. This is human, all too human.

Working in community here over a long time (just like holding a job for a long time) requires being self-aware and being able to take feedback (since we are all blind to ourselves in various ways).

This is why I advised you above to shut the fuck up, and go back and actually read what other people have written to you at the ANI, and reflect on it, and try to learn from it. And if you are able to learn, then communicate what you learned to the community at the ANI. That is folks need to hear to let this go. The more you post arguments that show no self-insight like what you did in that diff, the more people will become convinced that you are indeed incapable -- incapable - -of the kind of self-insight and self-control that it takes to be a productive member of this community and support for a topic ban to prevent further disruption by you, will keep building.

This is indeed all about you now. You need to make it about you as well. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

So I have dug a pretty deep hole...do you see anyway out. I mean most evidence points away from sock puppetry, but the ban for aggressive edit behavior being proposed...I'm not aware of how the ban proposals usually work. Do you think there is enough consensus for a indef ban? Or a temp ban? What are the chances of avoiding a ban all out, if I acknowledge and attempt to change aggressive edit behavior? Is it even worth it or should I just walk away from WP altogether?Petergstrom (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Answering the factual questions first:

1) TBANs come with the ability to appeal after a given amount of time (usually 6 months). If an editor is given a TBAN and sticks around and edits and behaves well in other topics, and in their appeal they express self-insight about what went wrong the first time, then the TBAN is usually lifted. But again people will look at what you have actually done while the TBAN was in place; they won't just rely on what you say.

2) About the SPI - you are not in the clear, btw. I proposed two possible sock accounts, and neither were borne out by the CU. My posting at SPI did not directly address what Flyer has intuited - if you are a sock of someone who has not edited in a long time, a CU cannot go back forever in time and I don't know who flyer has in mind so brought no behavioral evidence about that person. So whatever flyer was concerned about is still out there.

With regard to the ANI which is primarily about your behavior in this account (not the socking), I have told you the way out, twice now. Whether it will "work" - how people respond to it - depends on how well you do it (not ~just~ rhetoric, but whether you actually are starting to "get it" and yes whether you can express that effectively)

Whether it is worth it, is something only you can answer.

I want to add, that i understand that what is what is happening with you now is very challenging. It is never nice to have people saying bad things about you and it is hard. I get that. I have been through this myself. This is where people's character really shows itself. Are you strong enough and self-aware enough to deal with this authentically, will you try to fake your way out of it, or will you run away? It is all in your hands. Nobody else's. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

your warning(s) about an upcoming edit war

Dear comrade editor, given your track record of receiving and distributing "edit war" warnings, I take it that your approach to editing might be just a bit rash (please take some time to investigate into the exact criteria for a war). May I suggest that you descend from your high horse for the future? It is not exactly cooperative style that you are exercising when your entry into a dialogue is just a mixture of threats, derision, and intimidation. -- Kku 11:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

User Acuhealth: Is this suspicious behavior?

You seem to have more experience than me in stuff like this, and since you already talked to the same user: What do you make of this?

[1] Isn't this what a shared account user would do if they wanted to keep doing it without making waves? Normally, if the conjecture of sharing an account were false, I would expect a polite "no" answer, not a deletion with the comment "inaccurate accusation". It wasn't an accusation either, just a tip and a question... but maybe I should AGF more. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

i don't know what to make of that name that they choose to display, but no i wouldn't take it as referring to three people off the bat. Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	No doubt you were frustrated by the San Marcos Seven expansion process, but thank you for being willing to thoroughly vet information being added to Wikipedia. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Fluoridation by country

In accordance with established procedure [[2]] I am contacting you to ask why you reverted my citation required edit in the Fluoridation by country article. Your explanation that the subject was discussed in the article is incorrect. For your information, I have a degree in biochemistry (do you?) and have worked as a professional medical translator for over two decades (who pays you?). I have also taken note of the well-known fact that you are a known troll that is very active at editing other people's work on the Wikipedia. Please be assured that I am planning to elevate this to arbitration if you do not explain your revert or undo it. Thomas.Hedden (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

fixed: diff. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for showing others how to deal with this guy. Well Noted. --Antisoapbox (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Your instincts were right at Gender dysphoria

Hi, Jytdog. In retrospect, your instincts in reverting User:71.222.33.159's original comment at Gender dysphoria were spot on.

I had hoped to give the IP a second chance to see the light, as it were, but they just doubled down in their obtuse insistence in their righteousness, so I'm sorry now for my engagement there, which at this point just seems to have been pointless; you were right all along. If there's a silver lining, it's perhaps that the IP's refusal to listen to reason is clearer than ever now, including to uninvolved editors like User:NeilN (and I thank him for his involvement as well). I had hoped for a better outcome with 71.222.33.159 (talk · contribs) but that hope now seems misplaced. Sorry. Mathglot (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

it was very kind that you tried. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Missed source opportunities

You have an unjustified negative view of the various reports on phytochemicals, nutrients and other health-related articles by the Linus Pauling Institute (LPI) staff of biochemists and nutritionists at Oregon State. These articles are updated regularly (unlike many similar academic and hospital sources), include rigorous reviews of recent clinical research for each topic, employ USDA analyses from colleagues at the university, and are overseen by the LIP faculty. There is no hype in support of any position. Although their research focus has been mainly on vitamin C over the years, they have broadened their coverage based on the various research activities of LPI scientists. I've looked for similar expertise from universities anywhere in the world, and find no group with the breadth of expertise and article rigor as LPI has. IMO, there's no similar facility or site - not Mayo, Harvard, MSKCC, WebMD, UC Extension (Heneman, as you added), etc. - that comes close to the content value and referencing depth that LPI uses. I'm sticking by and using them as a good source, not externally peer-reviewed as in a MEDRS systematic review, but better than most for topics like phytochemicals, individual nutrients, and food science where the higher quality of MEDRS source usually isn't available in the PubMed literature. --Zefr (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

University extension offices tend to be very good on nutrition stuff; they are not the same (at all!!!!) as university websites which are very uneven and tend to cater to people who want to use DS and other forms of alt med. i hear what you say about LPI being better than most, but that is a very low standard. this entry at LPI is maddening if you read it rigorously. they make it kind of clear what the active substances are, then they say that various supplements have different versions/amounts of that active substances, then say without qualification "the results of randomized controlled trials suggested that garlic supplementation" does X. argh. and the random rah rah woo: "Scientists are interested in the potential for organosulfur compounds derived from garlic to prevent and treat chronic diseases, such as cancer and cardiovascular disease" cited to some random primary source out of pubmed. meh.

but let's discuss at WT:MED to get other voices, shall we? Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we drop our guard and accept every statement among all LPI articles. On one hand, we can find specific statements implying too strongly anti-disease activity of garlic, while on the other, I don't know, do you?, of a better overall review of garlic phytochemicals and health research than that one - I get irritated seeing all the PubMed review articles on individual foods, extracts and phytochemicals proclaiming anti-disease effects. I give the LPI articles a thumbs up for good introductory overviews for each article (where the typical non-science user will stop reading), usually pointing out contrary findings stated in plain non-jargon, and this is why I think they're useful for the encyclopedia as a solid, trustworthy, up-to-date, easy-to-read source suitable for the typical WP user. No problem with getting other opinions, of course. --Zefr (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

ok, done: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#MEDRS_source.3F let's see what folks say! am not totally opposed - it is better than others. Jytdog (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Your harassment of Wikipedia editors

Jytdog, looking at your contribution history, you have a pattern of engaging in edit warring. You like reverting people's edits, and when they revert yours, you seem to feel a phallic urge to slap your cool kid warnings on their talk pages. Perhaps you should take a wikibreak? Sincerely, Ethanbas ^(talk) 07:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, searching your username on Google brings up some interesting results. If you continue to harass fellow Wikipedia editors, I'll make sure everyonee knows about you. You should take a break. Ethanbas ^(talk) 09:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 75.175.96.6 (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 75.175.96.6 (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

You might want to look a this

[3], this is really very poor.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm curious. What has that got to do with Jytdog, do you think? Roxy the dog. bark 14:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

He closed the debate, and it was after that closure that this was inserted, he then deleted this, moved the thread to archives and then this as re added after it was archived. Thus it was his work that was undone (and I assume he had a reason for deleting it in the frost place).Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Meh, that isn't what happened. You need to loosen up. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog closes it [4] , 2 minutes later 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS inserts the material [5], Jytdog removes it [6] and then archives the page [7], after it is archived 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS reinserts it [8], so what did I get wrong with this sequence of events?Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

But so what? What is your point? Roxy the dog. bark 16:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

My point is that Jytdog did not think this should be there, and it has been reinserted. I will add that (I may be wrong) you were not allowed to do things like insert material into archives, for any reason.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

agreed that was very poor. my goal was ending the disruption which was good for nobody and maybe especially not for jps. am not going to edit war in an archive and the key thing is that the dramah is off the stage, and still is. Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

ARCA

Here we go: Jytdog. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC) (fixed WL Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)) (made a dif Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC))

Maybe it is too late to tell you this, but it is common for editors requesting a lifting of ArbCom restrictions to do so privately, by emailing the Committee. (Of course, I don't know: maybe the Arbs told you to post at ARCA instead.) The obvious downside of posting on-site is that one's fan club may well show up and make a lot of noise. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I received no guidance about how to appeal. When I considered doing it I thought about it for a good long while (including what you mention) and read a bunch of things, and this guidance seemed the most on point: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Appeals_of_topic_bans. If that is incorrect I reckon I will be told so by clerks or Arbs. Overall due to the controversy around what happened it seemed best for everybody if the appeal was public. I hope it stays that way. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

MED-EL article and COI

Hi there,

From looking at your previous edits, it seems that you are rather experienced in the area of COI on Wikipedia so I wondered if you would be able to help me. I work on behalf of a company called MED-EL and it appears that previously their/our Wiki page was involved in a COI dispute which doesn't appear to have been resolved. Any further edits that I make personally would obviously still remain a conflict of interest, so I wondered how to best address this. From what I can see, there are some issues with sources but beyond that is it purely the fact that previously employees have provided information that remains the problem? If so, I am keen to help find a resolution here so that there is informative yet neutral content available to readers.

Many thanks in advance for your help/advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.41.44.84 (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, but I cannot help you at this time. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

closure at Talk:IRS

I was just about to get the last word in! Your timing sucks. ;P (I'm joking, you did the right thing.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Re:Hey

Thanks for the message. Discussion is over at my talk page, I guess. Feel free to delete this; just unsure as to how to send you a notification without coming over here. Wildgraf quinn (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Psoriasis

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psoriasis&diff=765501372&oldid=765487887

http://www.phcogrev.com/article.asp?issn=0973-7847;year=2014;volume=8;issue=15;spage=36;epage=44;aulast=Srivastava, satisfies review article requirement, would you be open for crosscheck, it could also be verified at pubmed. Plus Halverstam2008 says climatotherapy not balenotherapy at first. good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.242.255.18 (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Please post this at Talk:Psoriasis so that other interested editors are aware of the discussion and can participate. I will respond there. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Enjoy! :) Ethanbas (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration motion proposed

Hi Jytdog. I'm required to notify you that an arbitration motion has been proposed at WP:ARCA that relates to you. The motion is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Jytdog:_Motion. Comments are welcome at the amendment request. For the Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion Criteria on Acupuncture

Hi Jytdog, this is herbxue, I'm having computer issues right now and have to step away from commenting for a bit. But in a nutshell, criterion 1 is just too limited, under 2 I object to the underlying goal of briefly describing theories and summarizing them as "pseudoscience", and there is no mention of mechanism studies. I'd rather have the sprawling mess we have now than have a concise "hit-piece" on acupuncture. I'll be back in a couple weeks. 98.223.168.84 (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; I reckon we'll talk more when you come back. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism

User:Jytdog, There is a contributor here on Wikipedia, 92.83.117.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who, as of 31 January 2017, has persistently been engaged in vandalism on WP articles, choosing to randomly change the places of birth and death of various WP subjects. His IP address should be blocked. Can you do this?Davidbena (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Nope I am not an admin. The place to report that is WP:AIV Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Sungenis et al.

Thanks for your help.

If you feel so inclined, there are also a lot of primary-sourced bits at Michael Voris's BLP which we might find to remove.

jps (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced claim

[9] What do you mean by this? Could you explain on the talkpage? jps (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

ok. Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking good

I hope I'm not overreaching here, but it looks to me like your request at ArbCom has passed: there are 8 support votes, and that makes a majority. I hope that's the case, and if so, congratulations! I also see that the vote that I think put you over the top was from Opabinia. I know you and she had some friction recently, but I hope that nonetheless you will take her comments there to heart. Her comments strike me as particularly perceptive, and include some good advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Well people can still change their !votes, until the thing is closed. We'll see. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

CRISPR

Thanks for your contribution https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CRISPR&diff=next&oldid=765873043 . I noticed the year of the ruling was given as 2015. The Times article says the ruling was Wednesday, meaning in 2017. I want to check with you, before correcting it. I will watch this spot, in case you respond. Thanks again. Comfr (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

yes that was a typo. fixed it. thx! Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hôpital Albert Schweitzer

Jytdog, I noticed your "attempted" merge of the hospital in Gabon and the one in Haiti. While I agree that these two pages should not have remained in their former conditions, I do disagree with the methods you have used to get it done. Why? For starters, the histories are not merged. Editors on the former pages are not getting credit for their edits. We call this a cut, copy and paste move. What I would have proposed would not have been a merge at all. Although these hospitals may have had the same founders, I think it is crazy to even merge these two pages together when they have completely different histories. What I would have proposed would be to have moved the former Haiti page "Hôpital Albert Schweitzer" to Hôpital Albert Schweitzer Haiti and the former Gabon page "Albert Schweitzer Hospital" to Hôpital Albert Schweitzer after the first move is completed to free the page up. This set up would be in sync with the French Wikipedia, as this is how it is set up there and its a Haiti move that I wanted since 2014 as you will find on its talk page. OR

We could have also moved each to parentheses pages such as Hôpital Albert Schweitzer (Haiti) and Hôpital Albert Schweitzer (Gabon) or Hôpital Albert Schweitzer (Lambaréné) (I believe the country is preferred but in the latter this set up is on the Portuguese articles).

One thing is for certain, the page cannot stay in its current condition. I would suggest cut, copy and pasting it all back to its original destination and attempt to gear up for separate article destinations. Also, I have found a Hôpital Albert Schweitzer in Brazil, specifically in Rio de Janeiro, but a slightly altered name (pt:Hospital Estadual Albert Schweitzer).

Let us regroup. Again, my major concerns is of course its current status and merging of histories. Perhaps something else to consider is turning Hôpital Albert Schweitzer into a disambiguous page, listing all 3 articles in a bracket form, (Haiti), (Gabon) or (Lambaréné)--whichever, and the Brazil page (even though an English version doesn't exist, maybe that is something you could facilitate?). Let me know what is most conducive. Our first step should be to undo the copy and paste move and go from there. Please ping me back in your response and which above would be most suitable. Hope this can be resolved as soon as possible. Cheers. Savvyjack23 (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Savvyjack23, pinging as requested. We call what i did a WP:MERGE, following the process described in WP:MERGETEXT. This is a process that has existed in WP for a long time and is a fundamental process here -- please correct your understanding of it. The actual edits I did were completely fine, and there are {{mergedfrom}} and {{mergedto}} tags and edit notes that deal with the copyright/attribution issues you raised. There is no issue there.

However, I boldly did that merge, and apparently you disagree with how the content and names ended up (although your argument seems to be based a) on your misunderstanding of MERGE and b) what other projects do, neither of which is persuasive). But we can discuss outcomes at Talk:Hôpital Albert Schweitzer. I'll open a discussion there about that. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

by the way, the real COPYVIO issue on the page is that almost the entire version of the haiti article that was created in April 2014 (see this) was copy/pasted from the hospital's website (see version of their website from April 2014), with some light editing in spots. I don't know how an admin would react to a request to revdel that deep in the history but every version up to the one just before I did the merge (up to this version) violated COPYVIO, and that content stayed several edits into my work, until I removed it all. ~Maybe~ I will try that and see what happens. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Stalking admin: the way I read WP:COPYVIO, there's no need to revdel the copyvio text, Jytdog. Removing it, as you did, is fine, and it's also the practical option. I know we delete pages that are all copyvio, but that's something else. Bishonen | talk 21:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC).

Great, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Henry IV of Castile at Acromegaly

I've noticed that you've deleted him.....fair enough, but I'm curious as to why the BBC would confidently publish that, if the information is 'only a minority view'.. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nix D (talk • contribs) 19:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

yes I reverted this. That was an odd claim and not mentioned in the article on Henry IV of Castile, so I went to see if any other source discussed this, and found none. One can sometimes find one ref or two that makes some claim but we don't work that way; our mission is to summarize accepted knowledge (per the policy WP:NOTEVERYTHING) so it matters what other sources say. If you can find other reliable sources that discuss this, that would be great. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Umami

Would appreciate your review of the issues and behavior of one editor under "Not used in science" and "Umami receptors - Yu study". Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

looks like they blew themselves up (block log). Aggressive SPA per their contribs. I've watchlisted it. Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit War warning

Please discuss on Talk. I have already opened a section.

Your recent editing history at Robert Sungenis 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. Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work

Thank you for all your work on the sequencing.com clean-up. It is always useful to have someone who knows something about the topic to help sort out the sourcing. The original article is difficult to see through the PR. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

sure! Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Jytdog,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Jytdog

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The topic ban from "all matters related to COI editing" imposed on Jytdog (talk · contribs) as part of the August 2016 unblock conditions is lifted. However, Jytdog is strongly warned any subsequent incident in which you reveal non-public information about another user will result in an indefinite block or siteban by the Arbitration Committee. To avoid ambiguity, "non-public information" includes (but is not limited to) any information about another user including legal names and pseudonyms, workplace, job title, or contact details, which that user has not disclosed themselves on the English Wikipedia or other WMF project.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Jytdog

That was surprisingly drama free. Thanks for clerking. Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

YAY!!!! Congratulations. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

What now for COI work?

Jytdog (and talkpage stalkers): It looks like your arbitration reinvestigation or whatever is done and you can talk about this now. I want to strategize and coordinate with you and other interested parties on this to maximize positive effect and benefit to the project. In the open-kimono mode here: right now I feel like we are collectively doing a bunch of work but in the end, spinning our wheels. There are several areas where I've given up:

• Indian media in general, Bollywood and spinoff music in particular
• Sports teams and players
• Beauty contests

It would be crummy if the following subject areas fall into the same category for me, but they are damn close:

• Western startups and their execs
• Western financial companies mostly equity-funds, botique banks, and the like
• Indian startups and their execs
• Indian banks

Without across-the-board reforms like DGG talked about in December, I think we are falling behind in maintaining parity with the COI creators here (SEO, PR, autobiography). I've contributed very little to the WT:OUTING discussion because there's too much organizational inertia/entrenched interests/misguided info-anarchists opposing it to make a difference.

One of the problems we have is that there's very little to show the people opposed to reform, other than anecdotes and our personal experiences. Metrics might help which I took a stab at last October, monitoring the COIN board activity. Perhaps we could automate this and some other things like promo speedies, that would help gauge the scope of the problem? Or perhaps more manual data collection as to genres of problem articles?

On the upside, recent interest in fake news and realization of the power of Wikipedia as part of a perception manipulation campaign might be on the side of people in favor of reforms.

Am looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this. - Brianhe (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear on where I'm going with this, it's basically reopening WT:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 6#Institutional knowledge and memory: towards some solutions with a core of interested editors who can drive forward some solutions. We have another year of experience at COIN and elsewhere behind us since I penned it, and should be wiser for it. But it doesn't seem like we've made progress on any of the six fronts I talked about back then (metadata gadget for readers, collaboration tools for investigators, COI procedures guide, assistive bots, metrics reports, shared COI watchlists). Calling @Lemongirl942, Nagle, Smallbones, Smartse, SwisterTwister, and Tokyogirl79: for more input. - Brianhe (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

(Lurker decloaking) I'd be interested in writing software to help. I could probably do something interesting that analyzed user contributions and produced reports - and I should have some time to devote to this kind of thing later in the year. Alexbrn (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: So glad to see you participating! Yes, software is our friend and I'm convinced well-specified and crafted tools can help with these workload issues. If you're not aware of it, there's a conversation here with some great ideas. I personally brain-dumped some ideas at #11 on rating new articles with machine learning to discover COI signatures; please take a look. - Brianhe (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Alex, also item #22, which I called a better creep detector, is related but has some slightly different implementation ideas and links to a test case. - Brianhe (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I would be happy to help out as well. One of my recent concerns is that due to a large amount of promo articles, it is somehow shifting the goalpost and new editors are thinking that "promo is normal". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Btw Brianhe, somehow I didn't receive a notification. I guess it would be good to leave a talk page message or ping everyone again. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nagle, Smallbones, Smartse, SwisterTwister, and Tokyogirl79: you are pinged. I might have flubbed the first one. - Brianhe (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Fortunately, we've had good success removing the worst of it, and I continue searching for others, and the recent campaigns have not succeeded in their advertising. I also attempt to be as clearest I can at AfC or other similar, to note what is unacceptable in our policies. SwisterTwister talk 18:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

SwisterTwister, not to diminish your work, mine, SmartSE's or anybody else's who does this stuff, but I think we put in relatively large amounts of effort for relatively small payoff. I could tote up the time I just put into one sockfarm as an example: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brilbluterin had over 150 socks, some of whom had extensive edits to scrub, took about a quarter of my editing time for several days and I'm sure much more of SmartSE's. This simply isn't sustainable, and really, there are only 3-4 of us who do this on a regular basis. We need to change the way we do this fundamentally. Changes include working smarter not harder with the people who are willing, deter future bad apples and try to influence GF editors to either come onboard, or to not stand in the way of reform. Either that or, I hate to say it, abandon whole segments of the Wiki to the bad apples as I led off with. This will probably mean completely losing the fight for neutrality and well-sourced evidence on the financial stuff that needs it more than ever if you are following the Banc de Binary/SpotOption Knesset fracas at all; I also think we have a lurking monster in the crowdfunding/crowdfinance category. - Brianhe (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Just now reviewing that SPI I realized we'd missed Lars Kroijer, an obvious promo crowdfunding hedge fund manager bio (no kidding) written by what has been possibly identified as an OrangeMoody ring. Missing stuff like this is bad for Wikipedia, and as noted above encourages even more of it. Take this as another test case if you like. - Brianhe (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

My notes on dealing with COI problems are here: Wikipedia:Hints on dealing with conflict of interest problems. Most COI problems fall into one those categories. In general, I've worked on articles others have reported to WP:COIN or WP:ANI. We may need to encourage more people to report COI problems. A tool that lists all articles with COI or {{ad}} tags would help. Dealing with the problems is not that difficult for about 80% of the cases. The remaining 20% can be time-consuming. As for the big controversy on outing, I don't find that a major problem in practice. For an individual article, it usually becomes obvious quickly who the COI editors are. John Nagle (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

One idea that came up before was separating the sausage-making of COI investigations from the AGF phase where we can invite people to self-disclose, and do some outreach/education around issues. This seems to me to be a no-brainer as the investigation/confrontation part being mixed up with everything else just makes it a bad experience, and (I suspect) some regular WPedians avoid revealing themselves at COIN because of this. - Brianhe (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for posting! I've read it and am thinking about what you have specifically written. Am going to run some errands and then will reply. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, great, I didn't think this would snowball so quickly without your input. - Brianhe (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm most interested in going after the big fish. We're always going to have new users coming along to create articles about them or their company, but those are easy to spot and we do a good job of catching many of them. Professional paid editors are harder to catch as they create what appear to be ok articles, but on closer are either non-notable, promotional or unverifiable. We really need some automated systems for finding new suspect articles in sufficient time that we might persuade a CU to examine the users. AFAIK, there's currently nowhere I can find a list of all the new BLPs and company articles from today. I'm sure we can all think of ways that would narrow the list down even further (Brian already included a lot in the Doc James discussion) and we should really try out a better edit filter since the COI one is useless for anything like this. That would also give us a better scale of the problem and allow us to see how much gets through the net now. Considering how much I just seem to stumble across, I expect that there is quite a lot. @Alexbrn: can you make sense of edit filters?

Another tactic is to go after the users of freelancing sites more actively. If as a community we can agree that some of the jobs being advertised are unacceptable, we stand a good chance of persuading the sites to remove ads. We're a tiny part of their business, and profiting from spamming Wikipedia isn't a great PR strategy. I've had success this week at getting an active ad taken down, but it helped that I could link it to Orangemoody. A good deal of refspam comes from them as well e.g. [10] and this might be a good thing to discuss at a community-level first rather than suggesting that all Wikipedia-related ads should be banned. I think that other users (Doc James & Bilby?) have also been in contact with other sites, but we should try to coordinate this more effectively.

I'm not great at getting involved with policy matters, but I agree with Brian that we need more efficient solutions than the current luck-based ones, so please continue to prod me to engage! SmartSE (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Just as a quick clarification, I don't bother contacting the sites. I can't complain about the existence of ads for Wikipedia editing, as we don't forbid paid editing. Accordingly, the only thing we can do is target the paid editors who answer the ads. My difficulty there is that the most that ever happens is that they disappear for a couple of weeks and then create a new account to start getting jobs with. The difficulty being that I then don't have the ability to connect the new account to the old, so they get a free pass until it can be proven that they're breaking our policies under the new account.

The reality is that we're going to be ineffective at stopping the jobs on freelancer sites unless we can ban the ads, but even then the most likely outcome is that the would-be employers will move to the WP-editing companies instead, where there is no means of tracking them. - Bilby (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

• As most of you have doubtless already noticed, I've not followed Brianhe's probably wise approach with respect to "the WT:OUTING discussion because there's too much organizational inertia/entrenched interests/misguided info-anarchists opposing it to make a difference". I think that the ideas here are all very good ones. I also think that it is wise to pursue these kinds of ideas, that do not require policy changes, for the very reasons given in what I just quoted from Brianhe. Alas, I'm pretty sure that we do need policy changes, but I'm also pretty sure that a major scandal will have to happen before the community as a whole will agree to policy changes. But I urge those of you who pay closer attention to COI work than I do to recognize how significant it is for Wikipedia that we are entering an age of alternative facts, because there is going to be a whole new class of COI disruption that will look very different than what is described above. I tried to present a picture of it at WT:HA#Break 3. To bring that meta issue back around to the more practical issues you are discussing here, I want to make a suggestion about possible software/bots. It would also be useful to have bots recognize subtle patterns of information change that are not like the business-oriented ones you've been discussing, but instead changes that advance various sorts of anti-factual interests. A specific example, based upon what I said at HA about climate change denial: a bot that would notice and track an uptick in edits that change the numerical values of average temperatures listed at pages about geographical places. Another example: a bot that watches pages about politics, and looks for multi-editor interactions in SPA edits, and that could make it easier to early-detect socking or meatpuppetry. And another thing: I'm planning very soon to reopen discussion about having a way to notify good-faith editors when first registering an account, about how we handle COI and paid editing. I hope that editors will strongly support that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• @Brianhe:, Thank you Brianhe, for raising these important points on COI, as I read above, I would like share few thoughts, Conflict of interest, can be directly noticed in some cases, where only purpose of editors is to highlight a particular article, with best of efforts. But there can be loopholes, for example, conflict of interest, as per Wikipedia, is some one related to subject and editing the subject as they have conflict of interest, but there can be groups, who could be working on reverse pattern, i.e. instead of promoting an article, in which they have COI, they could be working to demote/or add promotional(negative content) to an article, which can seem like a good faith work, but still Neturality and COI problems remain there!, and it can pass unnoticed. Its good when an editor comes forward and shares that they a COI with an article, but we cannot rely on ones who have not disclosed it voluntarily to community. Anywaw inputs from experienced editors, would certainly help, making Wikipedia more neutral and free from COI disputes!. Junosoon (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• promised thoughts...
  • We have a senior engineer at WMF who is willing to work with us to build a bot. See this phab item. I am not sure what the next step is there. But Alexbrn if you get in touch with Leila, who opened that, it would be great. I agree that a bot to surveil existing content, and especially new articles, would be great.
  • Further on those lines, we should be more closely allied with the NPP folks; they are on the front lines of the torrent of new promotional articles that come in. User:Joseph2302 used to spend a lot of time there looking especially at promo editing and burned out eventually as near as I can tell. But a bot would help with that, I think. Pinging User:Kudpung who has been vociferous about the need for more attention at NPP... Kudpung what do you think about a bot to help??
  • About stats. That is just hard. I'm not sure (and I am really not sure) what the value is gathering them. The "old saw" that is brought up is that some people think unpaid advocacy hurts WP more, while others say COI/paid editing is a huge problem. In my view, they both are significant problems; whatever drives POV editing is bad, and POV edits are what catch our eye at COIN. But Brian please say more about why stats would be useful to have, and maybe then I can think about that more...

About the specific topics you mention that really cry out for attention - startups in the developed world and India, and execs, and banks... how do we monitor those, especially for new articles? Are there on-target categories that we can follow? I hear you on the need.

• • I am starting to address the "raising the N" bar issue. I started an NJOURNAL (drawn in by an advocacy/FRINGE issue) and am now working in WP:PROF. Will be moving on to others. And will be happy to support efforts of others.
  • In my view we also have to continually work on raising source quality. The issues of "churnalism" refs is an issue at N discussions of not-really-notable people and companies. (this overlaps some with "fake news" but is different). I tried to get consensus to discuss churnalstic sources at RS and that will have to go an RfC. Old discussion is here.
  • Here is maybe my most controversial idea. I have been thinking of something like a "Guild of paid editors" (within, or like, the WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors) that we could work with good paid editors to form, and that could act to enforce high standards among paid editors. Something like this got kind of falterningly started with the Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms but I am an unaware of that statement leading to anything visible; I have no idea if there is less undisclosed paid editing by those companies or more disclosed paid editing. No idea. It might be good to talk to them about this too?  ?? Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Glad you gave us these thoughts, Jytdog. I'll just address one of them for now, statistics gathering. We need to treat ourselves more like what we are, an organization with fixed resources. And we can't do that until we know where the resources are going and what effect they are having. Ideally I'd like to see one or more of the following (off the top of my head).

• Proactive outward-looking monitoring

• Proportion of new articles across various genres (startups, finance, media?) that have significant COI problems
• Proportion of new editors who create a corp article from scratch, who eventually turn up at COIN
• Proportion of ditto who eventually turn up at SPI
• What off-wiki job sites are causing the most effects at WP
• Are there trends in the sourcing used on COI/UPE articles (potentials for RSN or blacklist)

• Self-monitoring of our team

• Who is the team? Who contributes at COIN?
• What makes people drop out? Do people hit a wall after X hours of time investment?
• Are people involved more likely to experience negative consequences on-wiki? (definition TBD but I think you know what I mean in general)
• Estimated backlogs in article review, number of COI cases never responded to, etc.
• Time investment of GF editors in reviewing and deleting new articles

• Post-mortems

• Meaningful network analysis on COI/UPE sockfarms to enable future early detection

Yes, it will be hard to gather some of these data. But maybe not so hard to pick some low-hanging fruit. The trouble is that right now we have basically nothing to show, not even easy-to-collect data. This leads to two problems. First, how do we shape opinion on-wiki? What does one post at a discussion like the one at WT:HARASSMENT weighing pros and cons of certain actions on our part? There's no current measure of the damage done by spammers, SEO, UPE sockfarms and the like. We know it's "big" but how big? If you want to have a meaningful discussion with people who assign a very high value to privacy in the privacy-vs-content debate, then you need something. Otherwise each side is just a raw appeal to emotion: "perfect privacy infinitely good" vs "spammers infinitely bad". Second problem, in the short term this is going to be a numbers game: how can we raise costs for the bad guys at the least cost to our own resources (mainly volunteer time)? Where's the biggest bang for the buck? Third thing is not a "problem" but an opportunity to recognize and reward each other for good efforts, build a sense of community, attract others who want the same. - Brianhe (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• There is a thread on my tp here which addresses these issues. It zig-zags somewhat, but it should be read because there are a lot of useful ideas in it, including AI and ORES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Something else that I think is a very good reason to collect those kinds of statistics is that "evidence" is going to be necessary in order to move community consensus. At present, it's obvious that many editors think something like if we just edit for NPOV, all the COI issues will resolve themselves. That opinion tends not to be moveable by logical argument, but if there is quantitative evidence of problems like backlogs and burnout, then things are more likely to move. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Jytdog (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• I came to this discussion somewhat circuitously, but now that I'm here: I spend a fair amount of my time deleting and/or pruning the immense quantities of promotional/COI content that comes from South Asian articles (it's not restricted to India). Some of the things I'd find helpful, especially with respect to avoid burning out, is having a larger set of templated messages, particularly to deal with situations beyond the initial COI notice. If I did not have to type out a personalized message to everybody who contests a G11 by writing "this is not promotional because it's about my company and I want it to have a profile and I have cited its website", I'd get through twice as many CSDs a day. Also, automated tools that could flag issues in existing articles (as against to stuff coming in from RPP), such as by flagging citations to facebook and such. Finally, I think coordination is something we could work on: by which I mean that though I spend a fair amount of time cleaning out spam, I generally do not dabble in the more "meta" areas of anti-COI work, and generally do not have the time to do so; but I'd still find it helpful to be aware of efforts in this direction; and I have not gotten the impression that simply watchlisting COIN will do this for me. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:PROF

About the discussion at PROF, particularly given how soon it is after the ARCA, you are being too confrontational in your comments to other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

SERIOUSLY. I'm one step away from asking ArbCom to reinstate your ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please keep in mind the distinction between a) discussing guidelines and policies related to COI/promotional editing generally (from which I was never banned, and explicitly not) and addressing editors with a COI or discussing COI of any specific editor (from which I was banned). Dealing with arbs on a) was delicate because arbs were going to make judgements about b). That was the only connection between the two. There is no ban to reinstate with regard to a) - you would have to take that to ANI or the like to get that done. Just saying. I understand you see my behavior as disruptive. I wish we could talk because I am baffled that you cannot see what I see going on. Not that what other people do should have much affect on what I do, of course. Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The above moved down to here by me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

If we are discussing the best venue for me to take you to in order to chastise you, then we are discussing the wrong thing. I see that you said that you walked away from the discussion because you feel that other editors are focusing on you instead of on the issues, but I want to try one more time to explain very clearly what the issue is.

I think I understand your concern: that there are too many low-quality spammy pages under the scope of PROF, often resulting from self-promoting COI, and that you want editors who are interested in those pages to take action to cut down on that spam, and you feel like I and the other editors are not hearing you and instead personalizing it against you.

The issue as I see it is: the purpose of WT:PROF is to discuss possible revisions to that guideline. Unless editors there get interested in new page patrol, they cannot be expected to be paying attention to new pages that are being created and to do something right away to deal with the bad ones. (Myself, I watchlist List of neuroscientists and always check new pages that are listed there, and take the stinkers to AfD myself, but that's obviously only a small subset.) It is generally unlikely that the self-promoters arrive here, and begin by reading PROF. They just show up and try to create their pages. What SNGs like PROF are good for is when such a page escapes CSD and PROD and ends up at AfD. Then, if PROF is properly written, the editors at AfD will reach a consensus of "delete". And if the wrong consensus emerges at AfD, I can assure you that I and others will be very interested in tightening the criteria. I promise you that.

So what you have needed to do is: provide examples of AfDs that went wrong, not bad pages, not complaints at COIN. I told you that. Other editors told you that. You did not do it. Instead, you kept complaining that the rest of us were too arrogant about academics, and were not listening to you. I'm unpleasantly surprised to be telling you this, but you were doing WP:IDHT. I know that you can do better. Now, the ball is in your court. Please remember: examples of AfDs. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to continue that discussion, and you still don't understand what was so frustrating for me about it, and appear uninterested in that. So it goes. I am very aware that I failed to communicate well and the kind of evidence that people might have found compelling.

Really Trytpo - what you wrote above about my TBAN was very serious to me and dead wrong, and for you to not even acknowledge that is very disappointing. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Two things. My reference to the TBAN was intended neither to hurt your feelings nor to be legalistically exact: I wanted to make clear the severity of what I was warning you about. But I do understand when you say that the specific details of what the TBAN was are important to you, and that it's deeply disturbing to feel like people are misconstruing it. I've been there myself, so I understand what you feel, and I'm not here to make you feel badly. The second thing is about "and appear uninterested in that". If I were uninterested, I would not be spending this much effort communicating with you about it. Apparently, I do not understand. If so, please feel free to make it clear to me, because I have no idea what you mean. Now, those two things having been said, all you had to do in that discussion was to provide examples of Afds, and you would have gotten a much more agreeable reaction. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that is more dialogue-ish.  :) I do understand that I handled that badly, on a few levels. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I remain interested in cutting down on COI-ish PROF bios, whenever you feel ready. Perhaps, at this time, it may be best not to take on too many battles. No hurry. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI

[Alektorophobia]. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you agree it is ripe for AfD? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

we could maybe just boldly merge it to the main bird fear article. which has its own passle of unsourced-ness problems.... and address those next. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

this may be our ani

In Expanded genetic code there is this section

Orthogonal sets in mammalian cells

   tRNATyr-TyrRS pair from Bacillus stearothermophilus[41]
   modified tRNATrp-TrpRS pair from Bacillus subtilis trp[42]
   tRNALeu–LeuRS pair from Escherichia coli[43]
   tRNAAmber-PylRS pair from the archaeon Methanosarcina barkeri and Methanosarcina mazei

41, 42 and 43 are primary sources. The last one is unsourced. I added an important primary source. You reverted it. I am going to revert your reversion. If you elimnate it again, this will become an edit war and beyond. Bite me. DennisPietras (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Too bad. Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

What they feed on

I'm beginning to think that the more we say, they more they like it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Advanced Bionics Notability

According to Wikipedia Guidelines, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline) Advanced Bionics is a notable subject worthy of it's own article. Information about the company is available in numerous secondary sources unrelated to the company, such as USA Today, extensive information from reliable sources like the FDA is available; Secondary sources such as the LA times (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/10/business/fi-advanced-bionics10) covered the topic; Websites already listed are independent of the company and hence provide the needed independent sources; and has significant coverage in reliable sources. (Already listed)

As for why it should be a separate page, please remember that subsidiaries often have their own articles (Delta Airlines and Delta private jets, El Al and Up, EADS and Airbus...) even when a parent company has it's own article too. Any Advanced Bionics has a higher market share than Med-El, making it all the more noteworthy. Plus AB implants are not marketed as Sonova but as AB, hence making a separate article all the more reasonable.

According to Wikipedia policy on mergers: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons_for_merger)

"Merging should be avoided if:

   ...
   The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles"

It is clear you did not read the guidelines before deleting, and btw, hitting undo once is not an editwar. Reverting a reverted edit (what you did) is. When I first started the article it was first redirected because of spelling/grammar errors and told that the article would be great once improved. The Sonova talk page seeks a separate article for AB, you are and Lemongirl942 are the only ones that think it shouldn't be it's own article. I have consensus on my side, CerealKillerYum agrees AB should have an article and requested so; but you claimed consensus was the reason for deleting in the first place, ironically going against consensus; as for being a subsidary, read the reasons above. By the way, if as much info was given as for AB as for Phonak, Unitron, hear the world...it would be a very long article in much need to being split. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The place to discuss this would be at Talk:Sonova. Please post there and I will reply there. thx Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thread

@user:Jytdog. I have responded to the thread that you created on my user talk page. Please let me know if it contains any errors of fact. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC).

You've got mail!

Hello, Jytdog. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sam Sailor 01:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

References?

I'm curious what this is in reference to. Jbening (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

your edits to Human genome were sourced to the database and cited kind of funkily... Thanks for working to improve the article! Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks fot the clarification. The Ensembl database is authoritative, so those citations are no lower quality than citations to a journal article (higher quality, if anything). And the table has referenced the Ensembl site that way for ages--I just updated the numbers based on the newest Ensembl release. But thanks for working to maintain quality. Jbening (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

May I have a word with you?

I'm asking you because I really do not know. I rl'd the name of that drug because I actually was doing some research about it for a patient and it was not mentioned anywhere on WP. Since this is included in major insurance formularies, thought it is worth having it mentioned at least ONCE on WP? But I did not feel up to creating an article for it. Also-so I do not know what is the right thing to do with particular brand name drugs--is there something tat makes some spammy and some not? I can dig-up a different source if that is your problem? There are OTHER BRAND name drugs listed there---why is this one not good? Is it the ref? Thanks for any help here.TeeVeeed (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I just left ypu a note about this at your Talk page, here Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Singapore sovereignty section

Jytdog, it has been three weeks and it is clear there is no further discussions forthcoming although the editors involved are active daily. You have not been participating as well. What do you suggest? Shiok (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hang with the process. It is not swift. I will pitch in at DRN finally (if that is actually re-opened). We might need to go to an RfC if we can't reach a clear consensus at DRN. Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Adult Polyglucosan Body Disease

Yo, Jyt, just come across this is as being CSD#G13 liable- could you have a look and see what you think? Looks like a fair bit of work has gone into it, so it would be a barbarism to just delete it without trying to save it. Basically, can you be my WP:BEFORE ;) cheers! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 15:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

hey User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi thanks for posting. it was actually keepable it just needed a complete workover, which i have done, and boldly moved to main space. Thanks!!! Jytdog (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant- I was hoping for something like that but it was well beyond my competency. Thanks very much jyt! Take care! — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 08:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

?coi

glad to see your back at coin,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Special:Contributions/Pllakers17 article Medibio I was just reverted [11]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - have reached out to them. yes those articles need cleanup! Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Weird reactions

Aren't those "aggressive reactions" just weird? Please comment on 123. 85.107.24.161 (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent revert

Hi again, just wanted to note 'for the record', that the Filmmakermagazine source is not my source. Have a look at what you reverted to - the source has been there for quite a while and the link is broken. I simply searched the website for the article, archived, and relinked it.

The only information I added was some I found on the amount of seminar hours attended, additional information regarding the curriculum (i.e. 'evening lectures'), and 'how contact is kept' (newspaper source). If you figure this for advertising, fair enough. I moved the faculty reference to the bottom because it was in the middle of information regarding what one might call 'academics' and it seemed out of place. Didn't want to delete anything after looking at the edit history between sept. and oct. 2016 and a series of reverts you did with the reasoning: "This was product of a very, very long and contentious set of RfCs." I have another question but I will eventually post it on the talk page (no walls of text, promise!)Wildgraf quinn (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. My apologies. I fixed it. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! I noticed your comment "tone this down a bit", but it looks like you did that (taking out the word "rigorous", for example, which I absolutely agree with). Were you wanting me to tone it down more, or should it have read "toned this down a bit"?Wildgraf quinn (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I was describing my edit. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks, check your email. I sent you a pretty interesting message from a POV pusher that approached me. You should keep an eye on it. Likely is going to attempt on BLP next few days. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

well thanks for the barnstar and thanks too for the tip. I will put that on my watchlist. Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

IP COI editing on Odeon Cinemas, etc

Hi Jytdog. You seem to do a lot of work helping to sort out COI issues, so I'm wondering if you would mind taking a peek at WP:COIN#IP COI editing on Odeon Cinemas, etc when you have a spare moment or two. This seems to be an employee of the Odeon Cinemas directly editing the article about the company. I've tried encouraging the IP to engage in discussion on the article's talk page, but they have not responded so far. They keep making major changes to the article in attempt to update it, but they are removing sourced content in the process. If the edits are fine and I'm overreacting, then I'll step back. The IP has been editing related articles as well and the COI declaration was actually added to the IP's user page by another editor. I don't want to BITE any new editor, so maybe someone uninvolved and more experienced with COI stuff could provide some insight here. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the article, and I'll post at COIN. Thanks for the nudge. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look and for your post at COIN. FWIW, I think the IP probably has good intentions, but just not sure if they were going about it in the right way. I've tried to fine some better sources, but have not had much luck. Anyway, if I was overzealous in my reverts, please undo them as needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

No your reverts have been great. The IP doesn't know what they are doing and have added bad/spammy content that belongs on their website. Jytdog (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

"Mental Disorder"-Article

Hi, can you please comment a bit more on your revert of my additions? Where did I violate WP:ELNEVER? My edits had nothing to do with external links. What do you mean by "Content added only to the lead and not to the body" and "this content is not about diagnosis per se"?

I was somewhat confused that you reverted my work on really important topics (like quality of life and "symptoms vs impairment"-stuff) because there is much text in the mental disorder article anyway that is either irrelevant or poorly sourced.

If you think that my edits don't belong there, please suggest to me other articles where it might fit.

Thanks very much for your clarifications. --Trantüte (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for opening a discussion. I'd be happy to reply at the article talk page, if you would just copy your opening there -- discussion of content should happen at the talk page so that anybody else watching the article can participate. Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, sorry for the delay. Moved the issue to the talkpage now, would be interested in your suggestions, Thanks,--Trantüte (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Questions about etiquette

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.

---

Just a note to say, your behaviour on Talk:Alternative for Germany is troubling me. In particular, on several occasions, your actions have clearly been inconsistent with several of the points here, including the assumption of good faith, the general commitment to be polite and civil, your refusal to remove gratuitous swearing from the talk page, refusal to respond to reasonable questions, and the refusal to concede points to which you have raised no objections. You have also accused me of several policy violations (in my opinion vexatiously), such as canvassing and tendentious editing, when I have shown that I am not guilty of the former, and in the latter case, it's fairly clear that neither of you are being reasonable.

I'm not quite ready to request intervention yet, but I thought I'd leave a note here to make it clear that I'm not at all happy with the way you seem to go about things. Hayek79 (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I will be happy to meet you at ANI, whenever you like. Your approach at the AfD article is way too aggressive and it will not end well for you. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you point to where you have found my approach aggressive? What is ANI? Hayek79 (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

btw :I struck the "do not give a flying fuck" thing here. before you wrote this. Your "refusal to remove" is a misrepresentation. Noted. About your "way too aggressive" I already pointed you to WP:TENDENTIOUS - please read it and ask yourself the questions there. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I had seen that, but I can still read it, and therefore as far as I am concerned it has not been removed. As for aggressive behaviour, I could throw an identical accusation back at you, since you have refused to assume good faith, have refused to respond to reasonable questions, and used explicitly aggressive tones and language when addressing me. I also feel you've also been fairly obstructive in addressing my comments, which, particularly in User:Beyond My Ken's case, has bordered on Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Hayek79 (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:TPG. I cannot "remove" it. You don't know what you are doing in WP, and you are being way too aggressive. You should edit about noncontroversial things and learn how this place works before editing about things about which you are passionate. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2017 (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.

Regarding Medical Device Section of Risk Management Article

You have started an edit war with me regarding my attempted corrections of content in the Medical Device section of the Risk Management article. I am not understanding why you feel that it is appropriate to reject my well referenced and well justified changes without providing a rationale or justification. I am willing to contact you directly on this to understand your perspective and concerns, but I am not aware of how to do this. I am posting here in the hopes that you can provide more information. John Walters (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here and at the article Talk page. I replied there. I do understand that you are new to Wikipedia. Please slow down and learn how this place works. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice

Sorry the timing was off. I tried to read through your comments and articles you'd suggested and my brain finally flat stopped working as I was reading the "Terms of Use." I would suggest that if you added a Wikilink to your ToU remark, it might help others to find it. Oh, lastly, I don't know what "diffs" are. I'll have to look that up too. Activist (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

A "diff" is a link to a specific comment, like this. If you are going to make a complaint about someone's behavior, you have to support that with diffs of the behavior. Have to. For more on diffs, see Help:Diff.

I didn't write about the Term of Use in your thread - you must have been reading something else. The ToU are discussed in another thread at ANI that is about paid editing. Here is why -- the ToU were amended in June 2014 to require people who edit for pay to disclose that - the relevant section is here. (note that this didn't ban paid editing - it just banned undisclosed paid editing). That is why the TOU are brought up sometimes - otherwise we rarely discuss them. Jytdog (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Copying over comments

Can you explain why you don't want your comments copied onto the talk page? Don't you think it would be useful to have the disagreement clarified? Hayek79 (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

My comments at ANI were written for ANI. They are not about content but about your behavior and they have no place on the article Talk page, which is for discussing content. User talk pages and noticeboards are the places for discussing user behavior. Jytdog (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Your comments explicitly addressed content, not only behaviour. I'm making an effort to be more conciliatory, and I'd appreciate if you'd do the same. Hayek79 (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You were obviously confused about what it was that I was saying, so why are you still maintaining that I'm repeating myself? Hayek79 (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Because you

are

repeating

yourself Jytdog (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The links demonstrate nothing. When you say I am repeating myself, you can't mean that I'm repeating things you were already familiar with on the talk page, since there was obviously some confusion when you restated your interpretation on AN/I. If you're referring to the fact that I copied over the comments from AN/I, do you have any intention at all of addressing what I've said, content-wise? Hayek79 (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Repeating that your claim that I am confused (now for the 4th time) does not make it true. I can't do more than you show you diffs of an example of you repeating yourself, to answer your question about why I am saying you are repeating yourself. Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Then you either haven't read what I've said, or you're just being obtuse. I can't think of any reason why you're behaving like this. You either don't understand what I'm saying, or you do and are now deliberately derailing my attempt to be accommodating. That's obvious to anyone reading this, by the way. I sincerely hope they don't ever give you administrative powers. You've both wasted enough of my time already. Hayek79 (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Revert of revision 769501669 - Palomar Mountain

Hi Jytdog. I see you reverted my addition to the section about Boucher Hill fire tower, the paragraph relating to the number of visitors and its open/close dates for lack of reliable sources or something like that. Im not on wikipedia much so I dont confess to be an expert. In this case, I am the reliable source for this information. I am the training officer of the agency that staffs Boucher Hill and High Point Lookouts for the US Forest Service and am a fire lookout at Boucher Hill.That is why I am the source of this information. We keep a daily tally of visitors throughout the fire season, which are confirmed in the tower log books. Also the opening and close dates are also correct. In 2016 we opened on May 1st and we closed on December 3rd. This is pretty much constant each fire season.

So I guess my question is this: If a source is a published article, such as an external website or a piece of literature then obviously you can link to that. How do you provide a reliable source, if that source is a person with expert knowledge on the subject, such as myself? Im not trying to rile you up or anything, Im seriously asking the question so my edit can stay in there.

Also, hoping I've signed this correctly. Kiwicalifornia (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! You cannot be a reliable source of information - see WP:V and this -- Jytdog (talk)

04:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Revision

Jytdog, I am addressing your criticisms of my editing on Thromboxane receptor. My efforts cover from the start to through the section on TP activating ligands. Before going further, I would like you to review and criticize this revised area.

joflaher (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	i have to appreciate your honesty i have not ever seen anyone do a self investigation that is awesome thank you for your service on wikipedia Jonnymoon96 (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Just so you know, Hayek79 has retired that account and activated his alternative account, User:L.R. Wormwood. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Rheumatoid arthritis 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. Drsoumyadeepb (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The Vipul Group

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. So, knowing everything that we do now, what are your suggestions on how to proceed? How about a dedicated subpage that we can link to ANI, to start with? Thanks. El_C 06:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Been thinking about that. What in your view do we actually know now? Am very interested to see your response (it is a real question). Jytdog (talk) 06:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Ahah! I was actually hoping you could update me with specific answers that would serve as a sort of blueprint. I have lots of open-ended questions:

1. Was there astroturfing?
2. And what to do with the List of articles?
3. In what ways was the m:ToU contravened?
4. In what ways were FCC rules breached?
5. Was there really a pyramid scheme facet to the Group?
6. Did Vipul himself benefit in anyway from the venture?
7. Did anyone make the Foundation aware of all this?
8. Would indeffing the Group be a dis/proportional measure?

I think you've followed the thread more closely than I, so I'm interested in your prospective answers to those questions. I think once we deal with the specifics of the Vipul Group, we should ensure that paid edits are, in general, restricted according to the limitation you set out earlier (2c), and that each paid edit should also have its own individual tag identifying it as such. But I agree with you that this is a separate discussion, best had once we resolve the specific outstanding Vipul Group issues. El_C 06:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Answers.

1) Don't know. If there was this would not be classic astroturfing. There are (valid in my view) concerns about SEO. This is kind of unanswerable even framed as a question about SEO.

2) The company Timelines have all been put up for AfD so the community will decide them one by one. The bigger question is whether a TBAN on the topic in the future is warranted due to a) bad quality editing' b) risk that SEO is what is driving bad editing.

3) The ToU was not contravened as far as I can tell. Everything was disclosed, in one of the three places actually required. (there was talk about requiring some kind of additional disclosure but those kinds of discussions have no place in this specific incident)

4) FCC rules - I am unwilling to engage in a discussion about this - it is beyond the scope of this incident and not addressed in any existing policy or guideline.

5) There was a pyramid scheme. No doubt.

6) See 1.

7 WMF is not relevant to this intra en-WP matter as far as I can see.

8. Some people called for this. I saw (I think) two comments with valid bases in the policies and guidelines as they exist today, and the rest were pitchfork waving without a basis in PAG.

Here is what we know (provable with diffs)

a) Around 250 articles were created or worked on by about 20 editors who were paid, some of whom were recruited by others in a pyramid scheme. Several of these editors are high school kids.

b) this was all disclosed per the ToU. Disclosed paid editing itself is not against policy.

c) the COI guideline was not followed with respect to peer review, and the editors did not believe that they should follow the COI guideline

d) The topics worked on ranged from very typical paid editing ones (executive bios, tech company articles) and some were very noncommercial (timeline of cholera).

e) Some of the content was OK. Some of the content a) violated OR (especially in the timeline articles); b) violated UNDUE (especially about philanthropies); c) violated PROMO (especially about AE philanthropies, tech companies, and executives); d) was very badly sourced (especially in the timeline articles and articles about AE philanthropies)

f) There was disruptive behavior. Edit warring, TEAM.

g) Vipul's response to the recommendations I made here, is here.

h) The ANI was remarkably poorly attended, in my view. I think my OP was too long.

I am considering an RfC specifically about this (and not about changing any policy or guideline), in which I am thinking of proposing things along the following lines:

i) that all participants be indeffed (I expect this to fail) but some people will want to !vote on that

ii) That they all be TBANed from paid editing in the future (this one would be ... interesting, but I also doubt it would pass and to be frank I don't want it to)

iii) That they all be TBANed from paid editing on articles about companies, company executives, and charities aligned with the AE movement in the future (this one would be ... interesting, and i think it might pass. I would want this to pass)

iv) That they be obligated to put new edits through peer review per COI (I think this would pass)

v) That Vipul not hire any more high school kids, primarily due to behavior issues and poor content quality. (There is an ick factor to this as well, that I will not say but i reckon people will comment on)

That is what I am thinking. Not sure yet that an RfC is the right path and there is a (very very tiny) chance that an admin will close the ANI thread and provide a close that can guide next steps. Am happy to wait and see. Jytdog (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for being comprehensive yet concise. I was about to suggest an RfC. I'm not sure there is an admin familiar enough with the entire Vipul Group saga—even I maybe read a third of everything that was written on it, and I think that puts me ahead of most of everyone. I could close the ANI thread (making it explicit that the pyramid scheme and hiring editors still in high school is prohibited—there's too many problems associated with each, so I don't think we need to RfC-that), then refer everyone to the RfC, which will be set out in a much more streamlined, less conversational fashion. So I urge you to create the RfC. El_C 07:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there's always the option of placing all your suggestions into the close, but I fear that due to length issues, not enough in the community truly got to participate. Now that much of the evidence been gathered, though, we can put a lot of these matters up to a !vote and see what the consensus ends up being. El_C 07:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I closed the ANI thread, though I'm sorry if it's a bit short on guidance. Again, I urge you to create the RfC as that seems like the natural next step. El_C 08:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Jytdog's mishandling of this episode is already being commented on in external sites discussing this case, along with references to compromised admin accounts (including one by a notorious paid editor whose statement is confirmed by ICANN 'whois' processes). Because it is surprising that the FTC (not FCC) prominent disclosure requirements incorporated in ToU were so easily deflected by Jytdog (who seems to have negotiated an off-wiki arrangement with Vipul and who also hatted my points to that end with false reasons), the WMF will have to be involved, preferably sooner rather than later. Inlinetext (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• On what basis do you claim that Jytdog negotiated an off-wiki arrangement with Vipul?(!) That is a very serious accusation. If anything, he has acted as a voice of reason throughout this. Do you not agree that a more streamlined RfC is the logical conclusion for that ANI thread (which, due to length, was beginning to outlive its usefulness)? That said, by all means, feel free to contact the Foundation about this. El_C 10:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

On or about 6 March 2017 Jytdog emailed Vipul. Vipul then called Jytdog. Thereafter for reasons best known to Jytdog he took it upon himself to open an ANI for this matter with palpably fuzzy proposals. Approaching the WMF now is premature, but I shall certainly contact the WMF in the event this community displays its collective incompetence and/or subverted nature. The WMF contact would be limited to ceeking clarification why the FTC prominent disclosure requirements and also the German Court directions against them (WMF was a defendant) are not implemented uniformlly by Mediawiki for the US / German wikipedias. FYI, I've heard of at least 2 German entities tracking this case emanating from the Orangemoody extortion attempts against them. Inlinetext (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

How do you know about this email & telephone exchange? Beyond that, wouldn't you consider any proposal falling short of indeffing to be fuzzy? El_C 16:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Not at all. My limited objective is actually for paid editor disclosures featured prominently within COI articles. My distrust of Vipul's pack is that similar (smarter) units will sprout to act as cut-outs / shills for professionals - eg.(this). Which is probably why I wanted a few more indefs (beyond the rather unfortunate Wikisanchez). I do understand (& empathaise with) Jytdog's incremental approach, but the facts of this episode are useful for me to go to WMF with for far bigger things. Inlinetext (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

At COIN I wrote here in response to Vipuls' Statement, that I had emailed Vipul asking to talk. He then called me on skype and after we talked, I summarized the discussion there at COIN, here. I do this sometimes with conflicted editors who aren't getting it. Actually talking with the person, and walking them through the mission of WP and how the community views paid editing, and what the person has been doing wrong in light of those two things, often helps educate the person and resolves behavioral disputes that had been going on. Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2017 (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.

Approaching edit warring, you must stop

Jytdog, I undid the edit of Drmies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), specifically telling him that this was still being discussed on the Talk Page and so any edits must be withheld. For the second time now, my removal of Doug's non-consensus edit has been undone, and by you. What is happening on Ai (Canaan) is obviously approaching edit warring, and you are violating Wikipedia's policies when you attempt to force an edit that is not agreed upon and still being discussed on the Talk Page. Please undo your own edit of Doug's content otherwise the current discussion on Ai will become an online 14-year old screaming forum. I see that the very last addition to your Talk Page was an Edit Warring warning, and so I hope you do not fall into this again -- please undo your own edit until a consensus can be made.Korvex (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Please see your Talk page in about a half hour. Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:2CA0:251:4035:5735:5002:280B (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Pembrolizumab

Can you explain why my edit was reverted on pembrolizumab? Aglo123 (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Did so on the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

fan note

I noticed your post at Talk:Jimbo Wales where you intelligently suggest an RFC could simply be hurtful, and then i found my way to the (related?), closed RFC about outing and Conflict of Interest issues where I noticed your comments, including a compelling one about how certain details matter a lot in the proposal. Honestly I forget where our past interactions were but I think I recall that we had some disagreement(?). And maybe we will in the future. But I just wanted to say your contributions to those discussions seemed very thoughtful and informed and well-put. :) Your fan for the day, --doncram 18:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes we did tangle in the past i think. :) thanks for your very kind note. Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

oic, it was about my too harsh language around wp:TNTTNT (i just came across mention of Editor Interaction Analyzer at wp:TOOLS so ran it). I did actually thank you for your feedback about that, and meant it. We are close in the number of cumulative edits we have, I notice too. In the future, maybe we could agree to defer to whichever editor has more? :) --doncram 01:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

thanks for tracking that down. i remember leaving that with a good feeling. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Vipul subpage?

To your knowledge, has anyone started a subpage somewhere for tracking to-do items relating to cleanup of the Vipul thing? Drmies mentioned copyvio and C&P move checks/repair in the ANI closure, for example. VQuakr (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The only open thing now is at COIN, here - about the company Timelines articles. New threads there would be useful to deal with additional issues. Jytdog (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

And now there is a COIN thread on the philanthropy articles Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jews - Origin section". 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 24 March 2017.

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. 23:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hydroxyquinol

I think there is a class project involving a bunch of articles on chemical compounds including hydroxyquinol. These class projects tend to be problematic. You have inexperienced editors with limited knowledge adding lots of content (in good faith), some of it good, but much of it inappropriate. They tend to be persistent and get upset when their changes are reverted becaue their grades depend on it. Sometimes I think it is best to just wait a week or two when the assignment is done and they don't care any more.  :/ -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Will try to find it and bring to the WIki Ed people. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jews - Origin section, 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) 01:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at GW501516 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.50.187.63.48 (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

For those interested, the IP is insisting that the GW501516 reference a proprietary name for a ludicrously marketed "research reagent" that fans of nootropic drug abuse use in their "stacks." There are no reliable sources that discuss "Cardarine" used for this chemical. Lots of spem sites tho. Jytdog (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Have protected the page to encourage talkpage discussion and prevent any inadvertent breaches of 3RR. Probably protected at the wrong version, that happens a lot. Either way, IP, the floor is yours at the article talkpage to explain why your proposed addition is reliably sourced. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for looking at the Stress Incontinence page just now. I appreciate you looking further into it. Have a nice weekend. JenOttawa (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for catching it! Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

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

see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#request for block of user @Jytdog: to prevent him from removing valid edits. It's either you or me. If you aren't blocked, "this place" (as you describe it) isn't worth my time. DennisPietras (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry that this is the stance you are taking. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Frozen in time?

I noticed the Timeline of notability guidelines added to your userpage; thanks, I didn't know that had been assembled. Do you think our notability guidelines are really frozen in time at 2008, or ...? - Bri (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

No, who ever made it just stopped updating it. I am interested in how things came to be so will study that at some point. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, while I have you -- where do you think I should launch the RfC about Vipul? It is about time i did that. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd guess either COIN or ANI, then publicize per this. - Bri (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI doesn't seem correct for an RfC. COIN might be but that doesn't seem right either. Am also thinking of waiting to see how the Timeline AfD comes out. If we end up removing them from mainspace one way or another that will be meaningful in the RfC.... Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hm, well. Maybe the user talk then? I suppose it doesn't matter as long as it's indexed by the correct rfc template. - Bri (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It is a weird situation. Am thinking. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

where to put consent info

Hello! thanks for that edit improving the link re a journal article on consent. With this edit, where do you suggest putting the material? I do not think it belongs in the article on consent in the law because it is specifically about rape/sexual assault. Not sure whether you read the journal article in the citation you deleted, but much of it seems to be a discussion of not just legal, but also sociological literature defining consent. Thanks—G1729 (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I did read the article. It is not a review but rather makes a very strong argument and I am not sure it should be used without attribution. But the content about the consent and sexual assault/rape is a bit of a mess. There is some in Rape and some in Rape#Consent and some scattered throughout Sexual assault; there is a major junk in an article about tort law called Consent, here at Consent#Sexual_activity, and as I noted on its talk page here, that content has no business being there as consent in a context of sexual activity has no place in an article about tort; there is an article about consent in a criminal law context at Consent (criminal law) and the content in the tort law article should be moved there, probably. And that is probably where your bit of content and its source should be. Jytdog (talk) 08:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Content on my talkpage

There is notice on my talkpage. It is without reference. I do not know what it is about. There are no specifics on this notice. YOU appear to have placed it on my page. Can you explain? Thanks meatclerk (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The article about Mark Dice is subject to two sets of discretionary sanctions. The two notices, inform you about those discretionary sanctions. If you have any specific questions about them, please ask. Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are you reverting a page with proper attributions? Thanks meatclerk (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

this edit] you made a) removed content from the WP:LEAD that is well supported in the body, and b) is responding to off-wiki recruiting, in violation of WP:MEAT (please read that) and WP:CANVASS. Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I know the process. I demand arbitration. meatclerk (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The editor (thomson) that blocked my edit will get a timeout. I dealt with him before. Be respectful. I know the process. meatclerk (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jessemonroy650: Do it. Now. Give me a time out. Scared to? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You got it, Mr Thomson. I know you. I know your game. meatclerk (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jessemonroy650: I've gotten nothing from you except the impression that you're acting tough because you don't know what you're doing. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You are funny. See you in arbitration. Bring your people. The plan a vacation. Done. meatclerk (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Not part of a group project

I see I was tagged in a submission that is a concern of yours. Granted, I'm new here but at the same time want to add long term value. Can you clarify what I have done wrong exactly? That said I can assure you and Excirial I'm not part of a group project, am not Dutch, Scandinavian or went to the Radboud University Nijmegen. (Cygnature00 (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC))

Thanks. Will correct that. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to take a look at our first article

Hi, We are students writing an article on Colors of biotechnology as part of our class Academic Discourse and Writing at Tec de Monterrey. Since you are an experienced Wikipedian and have an interest in these kind of topics, we would like you to know if you could take a few moments to take a look at the article and give us feedback. Thank you for your time. --ItaDeni (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Will look tonight or tomorrow. Thanks for the invitation. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion on another page.

Given our points of disagreement earlier today, I'd like your opinion on another page to which I'm planning on taking a similar hatchet out of BLP concerns for undue critical detail, Edward Nottingham. I think the "Inquiry and resignation" should be cut by at least half. bd2412 T 02:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

yeah really! I did this. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - that's just about where I was heading. I think perhaps we come from very different editing experiences. I have done a lot of substantive work on articles about judges. There are always disgruntled litigants wanting to shoehorn in critical assertions about judges whose rulings they disliked. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That was fun. thanks! (I don't do articles about judges, generally but i edit topics where people have other sorts of axes to grind -- UNDUE is everywhere) Jytdog (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

MEDMOS

Says "Classification: If relevant. May also be placed as a subheading of diagnosis." I often place it as a subheading under diagnosis as the classification is often complicated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

So it does - let's discuss placement of this at that article... will post anon. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with which ever. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Your wonderful and lengthy essays on NPOV and COI

Hi, Jytdog. I just glanced at your user page and found a splendid pair of well-written essays. It will take me more than one sitting to get through them! I appreciate your patience at Talk:Creation–evolution controversy and would like to thank you for your recent edits to the Creation–evolution controversy article.

My thing at Wikipedia has been to explain beliefs and positions as precisely as possible, without regard to whether these are true. Concurrently, I enjoy describing who disagrees with these and why. I used to be quite good at this, then I seem to have faltered somehow. Recently, I'm on the comeback trail, and I could use any good advice you'd care to give. Thanks! --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes they are lengthy.  :) I hope you find them useful. We get a lot of advocacy at the various articles describing views opposed to evolution and it is hard to main NPOV (as Wikipedia defines that) in these articles. Jytdog (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

congrats!

[12] I know last year wasn't easy(coi), but you kept going!...congratulations!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

thanks!

Deletism

Not you, me. Been wandering into the forest of health claims for nutrients and dietary supplements and functional foods, and in many instances, text is not supported by the cited references - either not at all or weak references. First choice is to find stronger references to support the existing text. Second option is to delete text and reference. At times adding something to Talk explaining why. Intention is to stay within NPOV, i.e., not deleting content that states something does not work while leaving in equally weak content that says it does work. And in these efforts, trying to not get too adamant in my deletism, as that could leave an entry with nothing at all on a topic people expect to find information. David notMD (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that work! Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Mark Dice revert

Quick question: did you mean to reinsert the IMDB citation? Looked from your edit summary like you wanted to keep it out. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Same question, but didn't want to revert your revert right away as I may be missing something. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Crap! Thanks both of you, will self revert. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Slate Star Codex AfD

Because the general notability guideline doesn't precisely define "significant coverage", I would appreciate it if you could answer the following two questions about your Delete comment in the Slate Star Codex AfD, to help me in future.

1. Could you describe what was it about the reliable sources that we cited in the article that made their coverage of Slate Star Codex not significant, in your view?

2. Can you give me an idea of what changes (e.g. more reliable sources, more in-depth coverage in a reliable source) would have changed your mind on this AfD - and what is the minimum you would require to change your mind?

For reference, the article has been automatically preserved by Deletionpedia here.--greenrd (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

What isn't clear to you about my comment in the AfD? Jytdog (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, as I noted elsewhere in the AfD discussion, Reason magazine is not a blog, and nor are Noah Smith's columns that are syndicated in newspapers. Nor is Vox. Secondly, even if something is a blog, that doesn't necessarily mean it's not a reliable source, and significance is a property of the coverage, not the source. So I'm not sure that the classification of sources as blogs is all that relevant. You may not like blogs being used as sources, but there's nothing to support that in the guidelines (maybe there once was, but not any more).--greenrd (talk) 09:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

These would be the same things you said in the AfD. Jytdog (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Your point being? You're not convinced by those arguments? Why not?--greenrd (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Please stop to WP:THREATEN

This [13] kind of threat is an unacceptable WP:THREATEN violation. Really. Another editor now has now disagreed with your position and undone your your edit war [14]. Please don't judge and don't threaten others without taking more care. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.LanceUnderpants (talk)

I am trying to warn you that your zealousness to debunk anti-vax activism is taking you too far. These discretionary sanctions exist for good reason and if you don't mind them, they will end up being applied to you. That is not a threat - -that is how things work here. And no, Guy's edit did not restore what you did -- not even close. It is concerning that you cannot see why his edit was OK and yours was not. Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Jytdog as you were not notified properly, the above user has filed an ANI against you. Claiming you have threatened them, which clearly you haven't. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: ongoing discussion on hte Christianity and violence wiki page

Hello, Jytdog. You have new messages at Talk:Christianity and violence.
Message added 03:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TourBus2020 (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Kombucha

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kombucha#Deaths Gerntrash (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Too soon?

Regarding this: I just checked on a mobile device, and the description from Wikidata was still showing below the page title. So, I'm wondering if the discussion stopped too soon. It's possible that I would close this or a related discussion (I need would need to run it by a couple of folks), and one question jumps out at me right away. The sentiment seemed to be strong, and the WMF folks seemed to agree with the sentiment. That's gold ... it doesn't happen that often that just about everyone is on board, and so I was sorry to see the discussion end. But was it ready to end? Wikipedians on the whole neither know nor care about specific designations of Wikidata fields ... that is, what I'm seeing in the discussion is that people don't like seeing text: 1. on the mobile version of Wikipedia 2. right below the page title 3. that comes from Wikidata 4. that can't be edited on Wikipedia, and doesn't show up on at least some watchlists, and, crucially 5. that's been demonstrated to last for hours in a vandalized state. It looks like the WMF people want to remove that particular field, and they believe that addresses the concerns expressed. But does it? On mobile devices, infoboxes (and possibly other things) that contain Wikidata fields often get pushed to the top, often on the right-hand side, and they sometimes contain Wikidata fields at the very top. Someone knowledgeable about Wikidata might say "oh, that's a completely different thing" ... but in general, voters from Wikipedia didn't seem to care how the field was defined, they were responding to the five points I mentioned ... which it seems to me could apply to certain fields at the top of infoboxes that have been pushed to the top of the page. So ... if any version of that discussion resumes, I hope someone will clarify, otherwise I would be closing what I think of as a not-at-all-clear discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a heads-up that I've also alerted Sarah, and since Alsee is talking about related points just above, I'll ping him too. - Dank (push to talk) 17:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Dank (pinging in case you are not watching) Thanks for your note! When doing the cat-herding of gathering community consensus i like tight questions with clear answers, and that is what the RfC was - yes/no on take them down now. I agree 100% that more discussion is needed! I don't the know-how nor skills to frame that RfC in a way that would elicit the kind of feedback that WMF folks would find useful in some way that allows the voices of en-WP to be heard. And there are many issues/wrinkles - you bring up new ones above.

So I chose to close the one I opened and call for a second.

If you think I should unclose it and that the ongoing discussion would be useful, please say so and I will unclose. You are way more clueful about gathering consensus on big issues than me. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't need it unclosed, I trust you, dog. But if it's not unclosed, and if the wikidata text isn't removed within a few days, then it seems to me the voters are going to want to have some kind of voice in what happens, so maybe a new discussion sooner rather than later? - Dank (push to talk) 20:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

OK. Please note that there is ongoing discussion below the RfC trying to identify "blockers". I think that could be better formalized... Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• I just checked a bunch of articles on mobile and found no descriptions on them. .... Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Been thinking about this problem, which seems potentially significant to me. I think I'm going to back away from being a closer, and roll up my sleeves and get involved. I'll start off with a thread at WT:FAC, and see where that takes us. Feel free to join. - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Self help books review not a literature review - Anxiety article

Pease point out the exact definition given for a Literature Revew in Wikipedia guidelines - I could not see it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arch0172 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS. In this diff you added this ref which is more of a product review than a literature review of the evidence that self-books can actually help people. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Please explain

Please explain and preferably undo this edit [15]. There was nothing aggressive at all here, apart from a removal of a long-standing image on flimsy grounds. We can't just remove things because single editors give flawed rationales for why they object to a section. Carl Fredrik ^talk 00:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I did already. I really appreciate all the work you do but you have been way too heavy handed at MEDRS, turning this guideline more into an instruction manual. As I said to you before, you don't seem to understand how policies and guidelines operate - they aren't rulebooks. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thou shalt not kill

Hi, regarding this revert, please advice which part is NPOV. The intro was added from Ten_Commandments_in_Catholic_theology#Fifth_commandment and using many secondary sources. Other edits was a rearrangement from the old contents and I classified them into new subsections. I'll try to fix it based on your advice. Thanks, Ign christian (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

thx. self-reverted and worked it over more carefully. how did a citation from the daily mail get in there?? Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, and for replacing the daily mail with better source. How about adding a bit from Kreeft, without additional details, which was removed entirely: "The basis of all Catholic teaching about the fifth commandment is the sanctity of life ethic, which Peter Kreeft argues is philosophically opposed to the quality of life ethic." ? This sentence will complement the previous sentence about killing, since the sentence "Jesus expanded it to prohibit unjust anger, hatred and vengeance, and to require Christians to love their enemies." was removed. Thanks, Ign christian (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Why Kreeft and not say Augustine or if you want somebody contemporary, somebody like Ratzinger? Seems UNDUE. Jytdog (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Kreeft is commonly regarded as a notable modern professor in Catholicism. But if the author is considered as the main problem I will find another source with equal words. Thanks, Ign christian (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ed Gillespie

Hello Jytdog. I look forward to resolving our dispute regarding page "Ed Gillespie." As stated below at the Gillespie talk page, please state your objection to the bonafide entry below, so that we may arrive at a just resolution. I claim that the entry below is bonafide. <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juankimnoah (talk • contribs) 00:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Neuralink

I never liked the idea of any taxpayers' money going to business enterprises, so I'm no big fan of Musk...and I'm now, as of today, wondering about the hoax/scam possibilities of everything he's touched. I'm considering abandoning the article....I assume you think its worth spending time on? Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

There is not a lot more to say about the company now, from an encyclopedia perspective, than the bit that is there. The refs outside of the original WSJ are pretty much just media circus hype and speculation. I have considered nominating it for deletion but that would probably just turn into a food fight, so am OK with it remaining as is and just keeping CRYSTALBALL and other kinds of speculation out of it. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I totally agree on the "all hype" judgement. Why do we have to live with even more detailed hype on pages like Mind uploading to give just one example? 84.151.200.201 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Glad you agree. That article needs cleanup yes. Jytdog (talk)

Guys, I am not spending more time on this, since you seem to be enjoying to do police here. May I ask which of you guys has any idea about the stuff on Mind uploading? or is there a neuroscientist here to judge the 'relevance' of topics discussed on Neuralink? I started to read the rules on WP and now I am aware of external links and spamming etc. (thanks to Jytdog!) but please be aware that wikipedia is a source for many people to track knowledge and find external links. People are aware of the nature of the WP and take care of the reliability themselves. It is not a peer-reviewed journal. Best luck Zombehpedia (talk) 08:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes "Mind uploading" needs work. It is not high on my priority list (it is science fiction and is clear enough (barely) about that - I am more concerned with real world things) but I reckon I will get to it. Jytdog (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

"Blockers"

Regarding this, "blockers" is the WMF's contraction of problem blocking further development—e.g., "this is such a serious problem we're going to abandon the proposal altogether unless we can get address this problem". While WP:Blockers probably shouldn't be red (even if it means committing the mortal wikisin of making it an off-wiki redirect to that MediaWiki page), it's reasonable that they use the abbreviation given how cumbersome it would be to write out in full each time. ‑ Iridescent 19:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I have seen WMF people use that term to mean only technical things, like "it would break X." I don't know if she meant only that, or also more intangible things like "this would cause vulnerability to BLP violations" or "a gadget that users have to opt-in for will not be used widely enough to have effective policing" or "Wikidata has no BLP policy so there is no way to swiftly and definitively resolve BLP disputes in Wikidata other than whatever local consensus can be obtained at a given data item". Do you see what I mean? I didn't want to put words in her mouth. I would hope that she means all of that and that they ask about all of that. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The Mediawiki page—which is presumably the closest we have to an official definition, despite still being marked as a draft—explicitly includes "consistent with the project", so I'd consider it as including the social impact rather than purely "is this technically possible?". Flow worked fine from a technical viewpoint, but its deployment was blocked because nobody wanted to actually have to use the thing, so there's certainly a high-profile precedent. ‑ Iridescent 20:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I would consider it that way too! :) Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

If you ask the long-suffering WhatamIdoing—whom I'm not pinging as I've pinged her about four times in the last week and she's no doubt sick of the sight of me—she can probably give a definitive ruling. I assume "Community Liaison (Product Development)" translates from Wikipedese to Human as "paid to clean up messes like this". ‑ Iridescent 20:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll ask her thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been specializing as sort of a liaison in the opposite direction, spending the majority of my time at Phabricator and WMF wikis. I've been trying to bring community concerns to their attention and trying to improve WMF-community engagement. The meaning of "actionable blockers" is exactly one of the topics I've been discussing with them. The WMF has been struggling to figure out how to work better with us, and this is part of it. I think I need to give a multi-layer definition of "blockers":

The WMF wouldn't be building something if they didn't think it was a good idea. When they think "blockers" the first thing they have in mind is:

• What are the technical problems we need to fix, so we can continue moving this project forwards.

The WMF reluctantly acknowledges that an unfixable blocker can permanently halt a project. Emphasis on the "reluctantly" part.

What about "non-technical" blockers? Well, that's fuzzy. The WMF often has a hard time understanding what we want and why. Things that are "obvious" to us are sometimes baffling to them. They really hate vague things like "this sucks" or "we don't like it" or "this is worse" or "we don't want it". If they don't understand it, it's not "actionable". They can't figure out what to do with that feedback. I've been told that "Thanks, but we're happy keeping what we had before" is a valid actionable blocker. At least in theory. They can initiate projects based on their opinion that it's a good idea, but they want us to identify concrete problems or data to justify our opposition. There is a general subtext that they will address the issues so the project can proceed.

Crucial point: The Draft Technical Collaboration Guideline (renamed as Guidance) states that the project team "owns" the decision of what is or is not a blocker. I explicitly asked about a Global Community Consensus blocker. (i.e. a blocker supported by consensus at wikis representing a majority of the global editing community.) I suggested that such an issue should be considered an inherently significant issue that must be addressed, that the issue should inherently go to discussion between the WMF and community rather than a simple "decline". That was rejected. The WMF's position is explicitly that global community consensus blockers may be summarily declined by the team developing the project.

Fundamentally, "blocker" means anything they say it means.

You should take a look at the RFC I posted at Village Pump: Proposal to submit blockers on replacing our wikitext editor. I explicitly drafted it with their "blockers" language in mind. Particularly note how it ends with two precisely defined "actionable blockers", and each of them identifies two "actionable" ways to resolve the issue. Regarding load times, obviously everyone agrees faster is better. They are willing to at least attempt to make it faster. It's unclear whether it's possible for them to really fix load times because the new editor is fundamentally based on VisualEditor. Regarding previews, it's open for glacially-slow discussion on Phabricator. However it appears that there is vehement opposition to fixing it. Why? To put it in a nutshell, there is a strong view by many at the WMF that VE and Flow are supposed to be THE editor and discussion system, there is a plan underway to kill wikitext-as-we-know-it, and the broken previews are part of a "well intentioned" sabotage of wikitext. They want all wikitext editing to change over to the broke-ass VE/Flow/Parsoid model.

Anyway, back to the main topic: Wikidata article summaries. In this case it looks like the WMF is taking a positive approach, genuinely wanting to work with us. The problem is that they haven't really figured out how to do that effectively. The RFC was closed, they want to work with us, but I'm pretty sure we need to be the ones to organize effective follow-up discussions. If we do nothing, I am pretty confident in predicting that they will just latch on to the "blockers" and "solutions" they were searching for in that discussion. Namely they will latch on to the idea of showing these summaries to logged in users, and adding an interface so we can remotely-edit the values hosted at wikidata. Those are the "fixable" blockers which are compatible with moving the current project forwards. That's what they'll see, and they will assume that will be adequate to satisfy objections. Based on my reading of the discussion, I am far from confident that is what the community wants. If we want to evaluate that option, as well as weighing alternatives, then we need to get that discussion rolling. Alsee (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this! You made me laugh out loud a couple of times (my boss called down the hall, "What!??") and this seems dead on based on my experiences to date which are scanty. Thank you, very much, for your work trying to bridge these two worlds. Awesome of you to take that on.

About the RfC I agree with what you say about the en-WP editing "side" needing to help drive it. I am not the best person for that as I don't understand the WMF side well enough. I had left a message at WhatamIdoing's WMF account en-WP talk page asking her to help tee up the RfC and shepherd it, and had also left a message at Olga's talk page offering to help give input. You seem perfect to help tee it up and i would be very grateful and happy to help how ever i can. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I hope I'm not butting in, but I'd like to add a few clarifying points. Happy to discuss.

What’s a community liaison?

Well, when we first started we were more like firefighters without a hose trying to run around and stop all the fires. Now we’re more like the fire inspector, trying to make sure fires don’t start in the first place. We help try to prevent things like the Wikidata description Rfc from happening. Sometimes we’re successful, things go smoothly, and nobody's the wiser. Other times we’re not. Not every product team has CL support and there is more work to be done than person-hours. Sometimes decisions are made that go against our advice. Sometimes we’re not even aware! (This last one happened to me recently when someone from the Swedish Wikipedia community enabled a feature that the team was not ready to deploy!)

What is a blocker?

It's a software development term that has spilled out of its confines in our task tracking software, Phabricator. A silly explanation: When you have a task "Paint the gizmo green in color" and you discover that you're out of green paint, you create a task. "Get green paint". The task tracking software allows you to say that the second task is blocking the first from being done - a blocker. Until that task is complete, work can't continue. Once you have green paint, you resolve the second task, and can resume the first. That's overly simplistic and apologies for insulting any unhappy software developers. :)

The foundation in general follows the principles of Agile software development, which means that we try to be adaptable in how features are introduced and removed. It favors smaller iterative changes over ‘big’ features. An alternative methodology is called Waterfall. A core feature (or in many folks opinions, shortcoming) of the Waterfall model is that it is slower. Once something is a feature, it is there until the Next Big Update - which could be years. Think operating system updates versus your browser updating silently in the background. Wikimedia - the community and the projects they support - is more in tune with agile development. Just like the projects we all work in, it is often a little bit messy. It’s still advantageous, and I hope you’ll agree, that we do work in a system where things can change.

So when we say blocker outside of that context of agile methodologies and bug/task tracking things get a little muddied. It's also muddled that we (the movement) are multifaceted. What one editor or community would consider a blocker another would be fine with (and a bunch of gray in between). As Alsee points out a blocker can mean anything! That is, anything that is preventing further development, which is broad.

Can a blocker be non-technical?

Sure. Well, kind of. In terms of the TCG, blockers are technical or can be solved by technical means or some other action by the devs. A TCG “blocker” is ultimately defined by the Product Manager, because they are responsible for the software and the TCG is speaking in terms of software. "Hey Reading team, I found a big bug that doesn't work in <insert web browser of choice>. Please don't deploy until this is fixed!". Some technical tasks that block development are things that break workflows or have unintended consequences with user scripts.

Other times something that might be called a "blocker" is less about the technology, and more about the nature of the work being done. If the team does research, has data supporting an decision to develop a change, and can show a need for said change, then it can be difficult to determine what all the possible issues are. We don't always do it this way, but sometimes it's hard for us to see that an issue is a problem when we've already done our homework and folks can still find something new! These kinds of issues are not strictly "blockers" (they don't truly prevent further development in the way that my empty can of green paint prevented further work on the paint job), but they do make us wonder whether that project is appropriate for a particular use or community.

For these Wikidata descriptions, I can't speak to the decisions that were made, but concerns were expressed and the decision was to move forward. Here we are. :( Ideally we would address the concerns and deploy an updated feature. Those concerns can be technical (I can’t see or edit them on desktop) or non-technical (the English Wikipedia is concerned about BLP).

Who defines a blocker?

Well, ideally this would be a shared responsibly. Product teams define some internally (This task has to be done because it greatly hinders user security!) Others are born from conversation with community (A community member realizes that a change would break code on the Main Page).

When Alsee says "reluctantly" I would agree and I hope you consider why it's understandable. When folks spend time working on something only for it to meet an early end, it can be frustrating. We would much rather see a successful deployment of a feature than an RfC calling for it's removal. When that doesn't go as it should, we ask for blockers to help figure out a way forward.

So, a blocker needs to be something actionable. It can be technical (fix this bug, make this feature), but it can't be "I don't like it". It also should be something that considers a bigger picture than what can sometimes happen in discussions.

Sometimes discussions don’t happen! We reach out to communities, ask for feedback and get little feedback. So we then have little to go off of and that can complicate things. I think we’d all agree that we don’t want staff sitting around much. :)

It helps to consider that many of the folks who show up to Rfcs and similar discussion (like this one!) are the most involved in this sort of work. Product teams should listen, and often do, but sometimes we have to consider the numerous folks who don't turn up and how they would be impacted. That gets tricky and can cause frustration on both ends. "They're not listening to us!" "Who cares about the readers‽" - Ok, those are a bit silly, but I hope you get the point.

There’s also just, like, a huge number of voices in some of these conversations (not just on-wiki!) that it can be hard to suss out what’s the best way forward.

What is the Technical Collaboration Guidance?

Ok, so I'm going to split some hairs, but bear with me. Here in English Wikipedia we use the word guidelines to mean something more akin to policy. The Technical Collaboration Guidance (yes it was called Guideline, we changed the name after feedback that it was confusing. Silly us.) is not a guideline in the typical Wikipedia way. It's truly guidance or general advice. Primarily intended for WMF product teams to reference, it attempts to distill the best practices of Community Liaisons. Why? Well, liaisons were hired after product teams realized they weren't doing the best they could at reaching out and discussing with communities before deploying software changes (some reading this might say it's an understatement). We're in a little better shape now and started to put down what we should do to help remind ourselves and others. Sometimes we hire new liaisons, or liaison-like roles exist elsewhere in the movement (like Seddon in Fundraising or the folks over at Wikimedia Deutschland who do similar community work) or some teams at the Foundation don't have a dedicated liaison (most of the 'behind the scenes' technology folks).

To be clear, the TCG is not a thing to point at and tell folks where they screwed up. Doing that doesn't make it something folks want to use and turns it into a retroactive "gotcha" versus a proactive aid.

Who's leading the Rfc on what's next with Wikidata descriptions?

The Reading team is in the midst of annual planning. We have not made plans for the near future to work on editing Wikidata descriptions from Wikipedia or making changes appear on watchlists. The work mentioned in the conversation around moving the opening section above the infobox is in the plan. That alleviates some of the reasoning for having the Wikidata descriptions.

If you all think it is advisable, we can create a proposal that summarizes the main issues from the conversation after the Rfc and place that in front of the community to build consensus on how we should continue with development. Given this, and past discussions, we think we know pretty well what the technical blockers are.

I would very much like to work with you all on figuring out what that Rfc would look like and what would be actionable things we would need to accomplish to move it forward. However, if the feeling is that even after adding the requested features, the English Wikipedia community does not want the feature due to non-technical concerns, then we should agree to address those first.

Thanks to everyone here for constructive discussion. This got a little long-winded. I hope this helps provide some context from this corner of the yard. @Alsee, Jytdog, and Iridescent: CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note User:CKoerner (WMF). This whole thing started because Olga asked for the community to identify blockers. You identify a thing above where you say "When folks spend time working on something only for it to meet an early end, it can be frustrating." I hear that. From my end is frustrating to find decisions being made and foisted on the community, and then we have to identify "blockers" but there is really no point because, well, people have already have already spent time, that is the direction we are going, and hey these people have to do something as they are being paid. I don't know who decided to use the Wikidata labels this way or maybe more importantly what the process was, but it was just ... a bad decision. I get how it seemed attractive/scalable and seemed even kind of clever and elegant, but it was unwise as those fields are unreliable and badly policed. And no the en-WP community should not be blackmailed or hijacked into doing Wiikidata work. WMF should just back out of that. Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@CKoerner (WMF):: thanks for your detailed explanation. I'm still worried about your "Who's leading the Rfc on what's next with Wikidata descriptions?" section though. The first question, and one which should have been asked before any development on this was ever started, should have been "is this a Wikidata thing or a wikipedia language version thing", and the answer would have been "this is language-based text, not some universal data item we can take from Wikidata". So, "what's next with Wikidata descriptions" is the wrong question. "What's next with short descriptions" is the correct one. Do we need them, for what purpose (mobile, seearch, related articles, ...), and how do we populate them (with a local template in the article, but which can be "globally" recognized by the WMF software, so preferably a template with the same name and structure in all languages, a magicword of sorts)? Problems like "how can we get these to show up on the watchlist, but not all other Wikidata changes", "how can we let local wikis overrule the wikidata description" or "how can we make these editable onwiki" all vanish if you go to the fundamental issue first. Fram (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, "blackmailed or hijacked". Oh jeez. I feel like you took - out of all the things I said - that we're trying to somehow do something nefarious. :( I understand that you have been frustrated at things that the foundation has done (or not done!). I too have been frustrated from time to time - and I'm part of the organization! :) I continue to acknowledge we can make improvements. Language like this doesn't make it easy to keep working with you. The fact that I'm spending time here trying to figure out a positive way forward for with the community should show some good faith. I hear you. Wikidata labels are not the way to go.

Fram, I appreciate the framing of the question you propose. "What's next with short descriptions". I think the question that started Reading down the path was "How can we help mobile readers get more information quicker - given that our mobile layout isn't as good as we want it?", :) which agrees with Jytdog's concerns over Wikidata descriptions not being the best fit. Perhaps we're being too narrow in our approach.

If that seems like the agreeable way forward - I encourage others to please chime in - then let's peruse that angle. The questions I think we're agreeing with are:

1. Do we need them? Is this a feature that makes learning more approachable for more people?
2. Where would these short descriptions be most beneficial? (mobile, search, related articles, ...)
3. How are they populated - editor workflows, bots, watch lists, etc.

If I may, a few technical considerations. This is assuming that short descriptions are something the English Wikipedia (and others in general) want. I might be getting ahead of myself. :)

I can't speak for Reading, I need to do more homework. My thought is that a structured, short descriptor are needed - and have shown their value - at least for search and the visual editor link inspector.

A template-based system is probably not the best way forward. I could see that being overly complicated with database design. However, this might be something that the Multi-content Revisions work might incorporate. If I understand it correctly, it would remain local and appear on watch lists, but would be more structured. I can ask around a little more about the technical side of things to confirm.

I'm concerned that we might need to move this conversation off the gentleman's talk page as to not clutter things up and to broaden the conversation to other editors. Do others agree? Too soon? If others agree can someone help with a suggestion on where? CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

User:CKoerner (WMF) I explained what I meant by "blackmailed"/"hijacked" over at VPP which I assumed you had read and remembered. My bad for assuming that. I will copy it here for you:

as i understand it

• there are people who want this field drawn from Wikidata, and to be good and useful (e.g. this comment from User:PrimeHunter) and having a local override is .. not elegant, breaks things etc.
• these same people generally want to have the en-WP community monitoring these fields and editing and improving them. They see that as a win for everybody, as this label can be used in lots of places. from that perspective, making the label visible in desktop en-WP and easily editable and not over-ridable is the way to go.
• in my view, while i get that, i think these people fail to recognize that volunteer time is the lifeblood of this project and every WMF project, and that their line of reasoning is basically blackmail similar to the orangemoody scheme - it sounds like this: "I am going to stick some words from Wikidata onto this en-WP page. Fix it in Wikidata if it goes awry and if you don't, well too bad for en-WP". (I know that is not the intention, but as someone to whom Wikidata is peripheral and has no interest in it, that is what it sounds like to me.) It is siphoning off volunteer time and attention to en-WP to benefit Wikidata and whatever else people want to feed from that. My commitment is to en-WP. That is what I volunteer for.
• What is more foundational are the basic "constitutional" issues here. Every project has its own consensus, own policies and guidelines, etc. Wikidata is a young project with few policies and will have its own trajectory in developing them. It isn't appropriate, and I have no desire to even try, to enforce en-WP policies in a project where en-WP policies have no consensus (the bedrock of all WMF projects) and do not apply - it is disrespectful to the Wikidata community and a clash of mission and values that makes sense for no one.
• If there are aesthetic issues with presentation of en-WP articles in mobile, the right answer is for the Reading team to explain that and ask the en-WP community to add a new element to the Manual of Style - namely the "brief description" and that is something we can build with time. Or the like. Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That is what I wrote over there. There is a conversation (mostly petered out) at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Blockers_to_having_short_description_on_mobile. As has been mentioned several times in this thread, a more structured, well-mediated, centralized discussion is indeed needed. Dank has also opened the discussion at WT:FAC that they mentioned in the thread just below this one. It is here: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#First_2.5_paragraphs_of_the_lead. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect Ferric carboxymaltose

Hi Jytdog Ferric carboxymaltose used to be redirected to Iron supplement. I established a proper page for ferric carboxymaltose and took out the redirection. As compensation I linked the topic iron supplementation within the ferric carboxymaltose page to the Iron supplement page. I believe it is quite standard that drugs may have own pages in Wikipedia. See Ropinirole, Atenolol, Evolocumab, etc. To my point of view the Ferric carboxymaltose page meets this standard criteria and is worth to be kept an proper page without being redirected. May I ask you to redo your changes regarding redirection. Of course any improvements of the page are welcome. I'm quite new with editing and not yet familiar with all features. Thanks Healthmed (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Please see your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

?coi

[16]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

yep, refspam. left a few of them where they seemed to actually add value. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Omega-3

J - I have put in a lot of time this week trying to update referencing and improve clarity on the omega-3 entry. I also started a Talk new section on the updated AHA guidelines. I left a note on DocJames Talk page notifying him of all this, and asking if he can please review changes. I reminded him of my situation (consultant to industry), but added that none of my work at Wikipedia requested by my clients, nor are they aware of my activity. I am trying very hard to avoid COI and to maintain NPOV. You are welcome to look at the changes, but I would prefer DJ gets first hack at it (he is away on vacation). Please weigh in on my Talk if you feel I've gone seriously astray. David notMD (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

i will look. there is a whole slew of articles around fatty acids (like ten at least) that are a mess and need cleanup. Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Ipsy (company)

Thanks for turning this into such an interesting article. Maybe we can use it as an example for future students. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

glad you found it interesting; after i dug into it i found their business model remarkable (they found a way to make money off the internet by something other than "eyeballs"... the perennial problem), and am really curious about what they are going to use that $100M for. new business model coming maybe. thanks for bringing better refs to the table! Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I second StarryGrandma, thanks for the revisions. -Reagle (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding this request, I went ahead and merged Ipsy (company) into Ipsy. I then thought about it a bit more, and swapped the histories so the one with the oldest received the merge. Essentially in the end, the content which originally resided at Itsy was merged into the content at Itsy (company), and then the titles were swapped. The redirect from Ipsy (company) serves as attribution and is marked as an {{r from merge}}. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for handling that! Messy. Glad it is resolved. Jytdog (talk) 07:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

CSD - Bilateral Opercular Syndrome

Hello Jytdog. I first noticed this article because of the auto hidden category Category:Pages_with_duplicate_reference_names, so I fixed its reference tag. But at the same time I saw the CSD notice, but wondered if it was a mistake. The summary says that this article has no relevant history or has not expanded on the other mentioned article. However, the other article seems to only be a stub. I could be mistaken, but I don't immediately see what is particularly wrong with this article; but I wanted to get your input instead of just removing the tag. Thank you, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 03:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

There was already an article on this topic, as the speedy delete notice says. This student (as other students in this class have done) is simply shoving their articles into mainspace under alternative names instead of integrating with existing content. We don't allow duplicate articles in WP. Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't moving/userfication and a message to the main author be more appropriate than CSD in this case? This isn't a controversial POV fork, a non-notable or attack BLP, and it would be easy to merge the articles. What if noone has time to react and the author is confused or has no time to work on it (course over if a student, or whatever)? This becomes a systematically lost contribution, unless someone else also notices in time, to save its source, contest or request for undelete/userfication procedures. This is almost like if we didn't assume good faith or cared about the quality of the content. Shouldn't CSD nominators also use their own judgement to perhaps use another solution in cases like this, where deletion is obviously not ideal? Or perhaps even, help in the merging process (build the encyclopedia), rather than defeat it? This makes me wonder what other potentially precious contributions could have been lost like this, or if the CSD policy might need amendment, if you're really following it to the letter (I'm taking a note to reread it). Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 15:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I want to make clear that I'm not accusing you, I'm trying to understand. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 16:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The admin at the subject article found a better solution. No this is not something I usually do. Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm do you mean the move/redirect and blanking (which is what allowed me to eventually still access the new article by forging URLs, i.e. at Bilateral opercular syndrome)? If so, does this mean that it will not get deleted at current time? If so, I'll probably leave a note to the author about where it is still possible to access the article source, for eventual merging. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 18:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I noticed your messages to the concerned editors. Thanks for your help, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 19:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

(unrelated) Bing–Neel syndrome would have been next on my list for citation cleanup (it showed up in the same hidden category), but I see you already handled this beautifully. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 20:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts

Wondering your thoughts on:

• Flexion Therapeutics
• Thrombolytic Science International

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Brendon Burchard revert

The Wikipedia guidelines indicates links to social networking websites like Facebook, MySpace, etc. are to be avoided. That makes a lot of sense.

But YouTube, although it has social media features, is mostly a content website (video content website). It has films, documentaries, etc.

And from a practical point, the type of people who would go to his Wikipedia page would want to see his business and motivational videos. Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Nope. This is exactly what ELNO is meant to avoid. People can find his youtube channel from his personal webpage. Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I just looked at the lead for the YouTube and Facebook articles. YouTube is not described as a social media website in the lead of the article, whereas Facebook is. So why would YouTube apply for ELNO?

I wouldn't list YouTube for every public figure. Just for public figures who create a lot of popular video content and have a specialty for creating video content. Knox490 (talk)

You are just wikilawyering this to death. A youtube channel is pretty much deadon social media. Adding it is just promotional, as this is how the guy creates leads that he makes money from, being an internet marketer and all. You can start an RfC at the article talk page if you want; it will likely go down in flames as the promotional nature of the link is obvious. Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The guy is a mix between a motivational speaker and internet marketing guru. I thought he was more of a motivational speaker so I put the YouTube link. I thought people would like to watch his motivational videos. I don't follow the guy that closely. I just watched a couple of his motivational videos and I thought they were not the typical "get rich quick" fare.

I will just drop it. I am going to edit other areas. Knox490 (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I am a fairly inexperienced editor at Wikipedia.

I looked at the various Wikipedia pages for motivational speakers, musical groups and other places where I would expect to find YouTube video links and I do not find them.

Thanks for the tip. I wish the guidelines were more explicit as that would make it easier on the more inexperienced editors. Knox490 (talk)

I appreciate you talking! Happy to talk if any questions arise as you keep working. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I just found this page: Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia. It greatly simplifies things. The wiki markup is a piece of cake. I have done programming in the past. Knox490 (talk)

Detecting COPYVIO

Jytdog thank you for detecting the COPYVIO on Coiled sewn sandals. Beyond manually checking the prose against the source (which is what I assume you did here), do you recommend or use a tool? I always wonder if User:EranBot would be watching all edits but never saw anything flagged, but I just found Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which is awesome, but has to be run manually? I'd like to improve my capabilities on this front -- at University we have Turnitin built in to course submission. -Reagle (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

that is the best tool i know of. User:Doc James does a lot of copyvio patrolling and may have other suggestions. Jytdog (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

EranBot has turned into CopyPatrol

CopyPatrol looks at all new edits to En WP over a certain size but does not pick them all up. It is based on Turnitin which is giving us a free license.

I am sure those doing the follow up would love to have more people join them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I found the copying when I tried to un-orphan the article by linking to it in the text of sandal. I opened the reference to see how best to do this, and things looked very familiar. Before putting up the notice I did try Duplication Detector and Earwig's Copyvio Detector but neither of them picked up the copy well. They flagged short similar phrases and missed the longer direct copies from a large pdf. Maybe CopyPatrol would have done better. Students take shortcuts, but I hadn't suspected this. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes the problem is common unfortunately.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

StarryGrandma, thanks for that. -Reagle (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Question Regarding Sockpuppetry

Hey, my understanding is that CheckUser will generally only check two registered users against each other, and not a user and an IP address. So is there anywhere to bring up something like this [17], or do we just need to pretend we can't see it? Alephb (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Alephb: Still at WP:SPI. Open a case but don't ask for a CU. Admins will judge on the behavioral evidence you present. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. Alephb (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. In other words, the anons can be part of the SPI (there's even a place for them in the blank template created when you open a new case) but there will never be a definitive correlation between the IP and the registered account. Behavioral evidence means things like similar writing style, editing platform tags, choice of subjects, etc. as opposed to "technical evidence" like IP address and browser. - Bri (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

My answer, is that it depends on whether the person is pretending to be a different person while they edit logged-out so that they look like 2 people (like revert while logged in, then log out, and revert again). Editing while logged out is not itself a violation of SOCK. It is very unwise to edit contentiously while logged out as it ~looks~ a lot like trying to SOCK. But I looked at those pages, and I don't see that they are trying to look like two people. I would leave the user a note at their talk page and ask them to let folks at the various talk pages know if they were editing while logged out. If they won't acknowledge it, then I would an open an SPI as this is definitely quacking. They are disruptive for sure. But not necessarily in doing this.

On the other hand there were a couple of IPs reverting at Abraham.... so either way. An SPI would be justified as NeilN said. Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Alephb: If there is a need for the CU, the clerks will usually add it and endorse in my experience. Although a checkuser cannot publicly link an IP to an account, they will have access to the data if it escalates to needing to check that technical evidence. I did look at this though because I saw the discussion going on in my watchlist and I think the behavioral evidence is enough for evaluation. -- Dane ^talk 04:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

In the edits and elsewhere, BedrockPerson has claimed he's not the IP. And the IP shows up (in almost all cases that it appears) in the middle of an argument between Bedrock and somebody else. It does not show up when Bedrock is peacefully editing all by his lonesome. I've filed it at SPI, though I'm not positive if I'm making some kind of procedural mistake in all this. I've read through literally all the diffs where they work together, and it looks like unmistakeable shenagigans from where I stand. There's a couple other IP's probably involved, but I stuck to the one I had better evidence for.Alephb (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

oh totally valid then. thanks for filing it. Jytdog (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

COI

To your point about conflict of interest, of course you're right: anyone who is not a volunteer has a conflict of interest. Mduvekot (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

well, hm. That is not really the issue with classes that come here to edit. There is a very specific (and to me, clear) set of external interests there. Jytdog (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2017 (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 [[WP:DRN]] regarding Fenugreek. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Fenugreek.23A_herb.2Fan_herb. The discussion is about the topic Fenugreek. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Porphyro (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

SAM-e

J - Thanks for all the hard work on keeping the SAM-e entry based on high quality reviews and meta-analyses rather than peoples' desires to cherry-pick favorable clinical trial results. This has always been contentious, and sadly, a search at clinicaltrials.gov found little being done vis-a-vis new research for depression, osteoarthritis or liver disease. David notMD (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!

I just wanted to publicly thank you for the recent advice you gave me. I have taken the suggested action. A good friend is someone who quietly warns you about this sort of thing and you showed yourself to be a good friend today. Again, thanks. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Heads up: I think you're being impersonated on Twitter

This doesn't seem like something you would do at all. Just thought you should know. Nopewasntme (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - that is very kind of you to let me know. there is no end to bullshit is there. Jytdog (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

My guess is that it is related to the AVN mess, as I went through the same thing, only a bit less subtle. Twitter will kill fake accounts very quickly if you contact them. - Bilby (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - done already :). Will be interesting to see how they deal with someone impersonating an anonymous WP account! Jytdog (talk) 05:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Based on what happened last time, my theory was that the plan was to make it look like you were anti-vax, and then use that against you on-wiki (or in my case, with my employer). But being anonymous gives you a lot more protection, and can't see anyone here ever falling for it with you, so it could never work if that was the intent. - Bilby (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe. Somebody carrying a lot of anger around with nothing useful to do with their time. People do weird shit when they are bored. Jytdog (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Could be more nefarious and related to Wikipedia as a whole. By logging into my twitter account I can see:

Of his 5 followers, 2 are Wikipedia somethings, [18] and [19]

Of the 52 accounts he follows 13 are Wikimedia and Wikipedia related

The 1 of 2 retweets he posted is a retweet of the bot that announces new articles,to [20]....and that article was created 4 days ago by a User who was inactive until this year and very active since. I have to wonder whether that User and the Twitter impersonator are the same or connected. I speculate that this is all about money in view of him offering Wikipedia services on his twitter account. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow... just wow. It takes a special kind of asshole to do something like that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Unpleasant! Still, "Imitation is a kind of artless Flattery."[21] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with both of the comments just above mine. Sigh. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

If there´s an admin watching, Nopewasntme should probably be blocked because [22]. If he feels he should IAR-sock again, he can always IAR-sock again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Has already been blocked by Widr...Lectonar (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• a note on this. I have tried several times (six now maybe?) to get twitter to delete that account through their report an impersonator tool and I just keep getting back automated rejections. I created my own twitter account at Jytdog_WP just to pose a counter to that one. I am not going to use it for much, as i have little interest in the social media echosphere. but i am have spent as much effort on that as i care to. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

How droll. They are claiming that my Jytdog_WP account impersonates them. Idiot universe. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Mine was easier, I guess because they used my real name, and I already had an established Twitter account under it. I'm sorry that you're stuck with this. On the plus side, I can't imagine anyone established on WP mistaking that for genuine. - Bilby (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)