User talk:Jytdog

Merger discussion for Palm sugar

An article that you have been involved in editing—Palm sugar—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Phonet (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year

No bells, whistles, glitter... Just to say glad you are here to continue to fight the good fight.

In a science journal peer review class, a long, long time ago, the teacher advised us to not be handicapped by an excess of tact. I feel same holds true here. David notMD (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

laughing.  :) Thanks, and may this year be a great one for you as well. Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested at Talk:Alternative for Germany

Hi there. We are currently having an RfC on whether the AfD is considered right-wing to far-right or simply far-right. Your opinion would be valued greatly. You can see the discussion here. Thank you! -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 22:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

What am I doing wrong?!

I 1000% understand the perception of paid editors on Wikipedia - I really do. But what's up with this? I guess all I'm getting at is I just want to make sure the draft is given a fair chance and is not just immediately shot down because it's been submitted by a paid editing firm. JacobPace (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems like a pretty clear failure for notability, just for starters. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jacob. Translating what Andy wrote into English -- generally to have an article on a topic, we want to have two or three independent sources with substantial discussion of the subject. (interviews don't count; a paragraph doesn't count). There are no such sources cited in the draft. So it "fails notability" as we say here. To give you an example of what we do mean, this is a source with substantial discussion about a business person.

Does that answer? Has nothing to do with you being a paid editor. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog and Andy Dingley: thank you both. I totally agree regarding notability. Appreciate it. JacobPace (talk)

Quick request

Hi Jytdog. Was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at User talk:Marchjuly#Cliff Padgett reply to make sure I didn't provide any wrong information to the other editor or didn't leave anything important out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes you did great there, i think. people writing about their family can get really .. difficult. For sone I tried to help navigate see this user talk discussion which stemmed from this ANI where other editors had just gotten sick of the person... Jytdog (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. The other editor's last response had me a little concerned, but hopefully my response to that will help clear things up for them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

In Regards to my Update to Institute for Creation Research

Dear My. Jytdog,

I modified the page to be more accurate and unbiased. I gave more information and better sources. I do not understand what was the issue with my edits, or what the point of editing wikipedia at all is if all editors do is revert your changes that increase accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.109.96 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Content in Wikipedia is based mostly on what independent, reliable sources say. We don't just edit based on what we think about things. This place would be a nightmare if it were set up that way, and there would be no point indeed. Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

A side note to my side note

(this is a somewhat separate discussion from the one of my PE talk page)

Amazingly enough to both of us, I would like to thank you for what you did on the Martin Saidler article: barring a few minor errors, I do appreciate that you took the time to help genuinely improve it - as opposite to just sitting there, throwing threats and stalking me or Andy (which you also did).

I have no expectation whatsoever of the two of us getting along, but I think we can both live with it. C'est la vie. Cheers, Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 08:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I am sure you are happy; what your client got there was classic BOGOF driven by Andy's horrible behavior -- an afternoon out of my life -- and I hope you enjoy the paycheck i earned for you by cleaning up the article. You are unwelcome on my talk page. Jytdog (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Morgellons 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. Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

So the way things work, if I give you this notice, as I did in this diff, that means that I am aware of the policy. What you have done here is silly. Please do read the notice - when you are reverted the correct thing to do is open a talk page discussion. I did that in this diff already for you -- please reply there. Jytdog (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, it seems you are not clear on how appropriate edit reversion works. Please be careful when engaging in mass-rollbacks. You deleted all the content I added within less than a minute of me adding it, clearly you did not take even a moment to check whether the more than a dozen sources I added meet MEDRS guidelines or whether there is merit to any of my edits. You have an obligation to use a discerning and light-handed approach when reverting edits you feel are not useful contributions.Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss the content on the talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

A Favour

I may have even asked you this before.

---- please insert here the exact markup used to sign an unsigned post on a talk page thank you ----

Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 13:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I imagine there is some automated way to do this; I do it by hand. I type the beginning, then go look at the diff and copy the username and date and paste it, then flip the order of the user name and date, and add those vertical bar things.

{{subst:unsigned | <<put user name-here>> | <<put date here + (UTC)>> }} -- Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to copy this section into my sandbox. Thanks again. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 16:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It's also possible to use {{xsign}} which doesn't require inverting what is copy-pasted from the history line. —PaleoNeonate – 18:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but my issue is as follows. I'm sixty mumble years old, and I just clicked on the link above in the (vain) hope that an explanation of how to do it would be there. It is there, but is written in scriptkiddy, a language I dont speak, despite my time here. All template explanations are written that way throughout the project, and they are all equally obscure to me. I can remember the first portable calculator, and digital watch. My first TV memories are in Black and White; I was born closer to WWII than we are today to 9/11 if you see what I mean. I'm a grumpy old fossil. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 18:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks PaleoNeonate I never knew about that. Roxy: does this help: {{subst:xsign|18:17, 25 January 2018 Roxy the dog}}? That's what someone could add if you'd forgotten to sign your last post. I just copied the time etc. from the history. Strange that the time is different though to what ended up in your sig! SmartSE (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

testing on your diff, smartse... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartse (talk • contribs) 18:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC) Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

oh that saves a second or two, i like it. (and yeah sometimes the time stamp in a signature and the dif record are different... i have noticed that and passing-wondered at it several times before.

in any case, Thanks Paleoneonate! Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are feeling lazy you could just type {{subst:unsigned|Username}}, which creates an undated signature for Username. The lack of a date/time stamp won't interfere with bot archiving of a thread provided at least one other post in the thread is dated. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm cooking atm, but will return to study. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 19:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome! Hmm about the datetime, it's possible that it may be due to user timezone preferences but I did not change mine to confirm (I use UTC). —PaleoNeonate – 22:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks ed and PN. :) Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I like to use Template:unsigned2. That way, you look at the edit history, just copy/paste the line for the edit you are signing, and plug it into {{subst:unsigned2|timestamp|username}}. It's as easy as a copy/paste. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

testing..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryptofish (talk • contribs) 00:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

and we have a winner. You still have to put those vertical sticks in but yes the quickest yet. Thx! Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The test showed up as a notification to me, and I thought for a moment that I had forgotten to sign my post and you fixed it for me. LOL! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Shakshouka. Bloody good it was. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 11:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I find it amusing that there are almost simultaneous posts by Popo le Chien and by Roxy the dog on the talk page of Jytdog. --Trypto the fish (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

yummy looking dish, Roxy! i would not have thought of poaching eggs in tomato sauce. talking about poached eggs, have you heard of the new way to new way to scramble eggs? I have still not tried it. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Good luck cleaning that sieve. If you haven't tried shakshuka you really need to! SmartSE (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I just used the Trypto suggested solution for the first time, and it worked smoothly with no hassle. Thanks to everybody. I will not be making watery scrambled eggs though. I hate soggy toast. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 13:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Second opinion requested

Hi! I needed a second opinion on the following statement that a COI editor wishes to add to the Sinclair Community College article. The statement:

"Less than a third of those who had enrolled in 1999 earned degrees or certificates, transferred or continued to be enrolled with progress toward a credential by 2003. By the 2009-13 period, the number rose to 56 percent, a 75 percent increase, Inside Higher Ed reported."

I wasn't too sure if it sounded peacockyish enough. What is your take on a statement like this, and what kinds of evidence should we require for these "I've Changed My Tune" type assertions, which can be very tricky if the org. doing the study applies their methadology incorrectly. Thank you for your help! Spintendo ᔦᔭ 17:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Medical Research and Nature

While I appreciate your noting on my talk page how important publication sources are, I will remind you that Nature is a __fully__ qualified publication for clinical and biological research papers of only the highest of standards so there is no point to remove anything that they have publish with regard to medicine.

Removing posts based on publication in Nature and only be construed as vandalism.

Thank You for sharing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lil bklyn (talk • contribs) 03:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You left pretty much the same message at the article talk page, here: Talk:Osimertinib. I have replied there. Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Lil bklyn. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Osimertinib have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Lil bklyn (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

As I noted, I have asked for folks at WP:MED to comment. Please keep your pants on. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your intervention and contributions for the article OPNsense. Hagennos (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Response to my Message

Hi,

I responded to your concerns on my Talk page but did not get any response from your side since then. Could you please check the following link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Faizan81

PS: I am copying my response here too in case:

Hey Jytdog,

I am sorry for any inconvenience occurred because of me. You can check out the following page here:

http://electricalacademia.com/about-us/

I am an Electrical Engineer and Ph.D. Fellow at Energy Systems Laboratory, Miami, USA. I like writing technical articles, i have my own blog where i usually write about Electrical Topics. ElectricalAcademia.com is MY OWN portal and i have been working on it for last one and half year.

I realized some articles here needed citations for further verification of the material so i provided some references from my OWN website.

I DO NOT have any intentions of promoting or advertising my website somewhere. If you think that "providing references from my own portal" conflicts with Wikipedia policies, accept my apology. I won't do this anymore.

Please let me know if you have any further question or query regarding my activity here. Thank you

Ahmed Faizan Sheikh

Fabry disease -- chemical chaperone therapy

Hi Jytdog - Today, you reverted wholesale all my edits to medical articles (four in all), providing a couple of words (or none) as reason in each case. You asked me to discuss disputes on your page. So here I am.

As I have limited energy, I am limiting this discussion to the revert for Fabry disease (your revert revision: 822726863, reason: 'primary source'). I have undone your revert. This is because it removed all information for an entire class of therapies (chemical chaperone therapy) for Fabry disease. The paper on galactose you rejected as 'primary source' is well-accepted science -- it's cited by 333 other papers and co-authored by RJ Desnick (whose research pretty much led to the invention of most Fabry related therapies).

I appreciate knowledge needs custodians. But energy is a finite resource, and a light touch is in order. If you want people to talk, first talk yourself, or dispute what you find objectionable. I'd rather you even took a scalpel to text you found objectionable, instead of wholesale reverts that (I'm sure you don't intend this) come close to vandalism.

Can you respond (and hopefully re-revert your Fabry disease deletion)?

Kind regards, -- Scanon7 (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I have no dog in this race, I know nothing about this subject. However, I assume you are a new editor her, so a word of friendly advice. Wikipedia has a number of conventions about how we go about things. One of these is the bold, revert, discuss cycle. You made a bold change and it was reverted. Now we should discuss the issue, on the article talk page. What you should not do is just re-revert. Also, vandalism had a very specific meaning in Wikipedia and this is nothing like it. Accusing another editor of vandalism without valid reason is a very serious breach of the no personal attacks policy. Please take this in the manet on which it is intended. I know it's a hard row to hoe being new here, there are a lot of rules and policies,but it is worth it in the end. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Nick Thorne, thanks for your comments (I do mean it). No offense taken. Yes, I am new to the more arcane Wikipedia conventions. Thanks for pointing out the BRD convention - I didn't know. You *had* no dog but put one in by re-reverting. You've fallen afoul of BRD yourself by re-reverting. Quoting the rule: "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. (That's me. Guilty as charged). If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. (That's you) If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD."

So neither of us followed BRD. Of course, you're not Jytdog, but I'd providing him detailed information in the hope he'd agree. Your re-revert provided neither fix nor context to progress the matter.

Can I suggest if you don't know about a topic, don't edit it until you do? Especially if you aren't following BRD yourself. Otherwise the issue stays unresolved, and all your actions do is make possible an informal workaround around the three-revert rule.

Anyway, per BRD I'm not re-re-reverting (give or take a 're'). Instead, I await information from Jytdog here on his page.

Kind regards,

-- Scanon7 (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

First, please learn to indent your replies by inserting a colon at the beginning of your pest, see TPG. Your interpretation of BRD does not accord with common usage here, in any case, I have only reverted you once so I have not contravened even the letter of the law. It would seem you have a lot to learn about sourcing especially in the medical areas. I suggest you would be well advised to reread the info Jytdog linked to on your talk page. Continuing to place unsourced or poorly sourced material into articles is a sure fire way to run into trouble here. Please take it slowly and be extremely careful that you scrupulously follow the established sourcing and verification policies. Your comments indicate that you don't yet grasp the meaning of secondary sources. Finally, your suggestions about who should edit any particular article are out of order. I put it down to your admitted inexperience, please stick to commenting on content. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Very well, Nick. We disagree. Thanks for the tip about the colon -I've fixed it. Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. I await Jytdog's reply here

-- Scanon7 (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In this case, WP:MEDRS applies. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 12:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually I never asked you to leave a message here. Content matters should be discussed at the relevant article talk page.

That said, what Nick and Roxy have said to you is correct. Content about health should be sourced from recent reviews or statements from major scientific/medical bodies. We rarely use primary sources for content about health, and when we do it is for some good reason.

When somebody adds the same low quality ref to more than one article, this starts to look more like WP:REFSPAM than improving the encyclopedia.

Everything good that exists in WP, is here because people did what they should do. There is a lot of stuff one can do, of course. One can replace the content of an article with "cow cow cow".

You are new here. Things will go better if you understand that, and take a stance of learning. There is a learning curve to working in Wikipedia, especially about health -- I did say that on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog:

You are correct that you did not ask me to talk to you. That was user Zefr -sorry.

No, I am not new here.

Learning in a spirit of collaboration I understand. But instead of improving my contributions, you took a razor to them. Perhaps, this is an effective strategy for you. But that removed the only accurate information the Fabry disease article had on an entire class of therapies (chaperones), including my link to a drug already in use (Migalastat, approved in the EU in 2016 and in Australia in 2017). Now, decades after research into these therapies started, the article is silent about them (except inaccurate information someone else hastily copy/pasted from some website). And not one but three users (Jytdog, Nick Thorne, Roxy the dog), seemingly stand ready and willing to revert but not to edit. Whatever happened to Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary?

I don't know what you are on about WP:REFSPAM - I was cross-linking content which applied to two articles (Galatose and Fabry disease).

--- Scanon7 (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

"No I am not new here" - correct in the literal sense, your first edit was in September 2012, when you made three edits to one article and one to another. Then you made one edit in 2013 and again in 2015, both to unrelated articles. That's your entire editing history until the 20 January 2018 when you started this series of edits. You may not be "new", but you certainly are not experienced (I am assuming there has been no sock-puppetry here). Please climb down from your high horse and listen to the advice you are being given. We take sourcing very seriously here, especially with regards to articles about medicine, health and other science related subjects. You may well be attempting to add valuable information, but the problem is your sources, "truth" is not sufficient. Secondary sources are used in the medical area for very good reasons, you have already been advised to read MEDRS, please do so and take it to heart. If you can find good secondary sources for your information then go back to the article(s) talk page(s) and discuss appropriate changes to incorporate it giving due weight, of course. Please understand that our opinions as editors on subject material is irrelevant, what counts is what the reliable sources say (and in the case of medial subjects, reliable secondary sources). Any further discussion should be on the relevant article talk page. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Nick, thank you. They are older and more numerous - contributions don't require profiles. My 'high-horse' is actually a weary donkey at this point. Have a good day!

-- Scanon7 (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Maximiliano Korstanje

Hi my name is Ignacio, I am editing this page but I found you removed the content I added. This is in follow up of JZG suggestions other users were not added reliable informatio. Can you assist me in what I am doing wrong?, this is not spam or self promotion. 190.104.232.132 (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted an edit by User:Rockstar984. If you are going to be present here, would you please log in. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

SURE this is the lab of an university many peopel use internet with the same ID, I am rockstar ... the ref I added are Taylo and francis and Emerald top ranked publishers, let me know what I did wrong for the content to be reverted?. Rockstar984 (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I respondedto your quest. Rockstar984 (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia CoI

Hi, I saw you reverted an edit by Isaacl on Wikipedia:CoI, saying it was by a sock for a block evasion. I checked his edit history and he has been editing sinse 2006, and isn't bocked or subject of a sockpuppet investigation. Usually when sock puppetry is suspected, it is because of edit patterns, and if the edit pattern resembles a sock, you should let User:Isaacl know that his account may be compromised and no be used by a blocked user.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted the edit note and the edit. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

"spammy?"

Hi, can you elabourate on to what is spammy about the changes you reverted to thalassotherapy and Laminaria digitata? What am I trying to sell, a 30 year old book? Nessie (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. content saying that some seaweed is used in some kind of therapy needs a much better ref than ISBN 0964764377, a book published thirty years ago by a company that sells seaweed. it is spammy for the alt-med claim. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, that house is already on shaky ground: that article is in the pseudoscience wikiproject. Do any of te citations for the article have proof it works for anything? Maybe I should have read the article more closely, but does it have to be a medicinal thing? e.g. if I linked to oatmeal in a link about exfoliants, does it have to be a treatment for exema?Nessie (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I spent some time looking and cannot find anything approaching a decent source about this. I fixed some other stuff in the digitata article tho. interesting about those tents used to induce labor. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Amos Yee Talk Page Pedophilia Activism addition section

User:Jytdog how was what I posted on the discussion page a BLP violation on the Amos Yee page? I was NOT joking, defaming, or attacking the individual those were his views and to further prevent possible POV from my opinions I posted on the talk page instead of making edits on the page directly in a section. If you check the youtube page (primary source) belonging to him there are several points that mention his advocacy for pedophilia. Second the said individual was kicked out of his home for his opinions 1 23. Please add it back into the discussion page so it can be discussed (I don't care if you change the wording either) or explain why you think adding his pedophilia activism or discussing it on the talk page is against the wikipedia rules --Cs california (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

When you make statements like that anywhere in WP you need to cite a source - an actual one. At the talk page you just linked to his main youtube channel - not OK. Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The youtube channel is a primary source. How is it not a valid source if it is from the horses mouth? --Cs california (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Instead of making drama you could just repost with a specific source as you provided above. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

typo

I did not mean to call you a dolt[1] I meant to say "you told" this was a typo. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

David L Katz

Can you justify you fervor to retain the content that had been posted? The article is ridiculous, and my edits are factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorthMedia (talk • contribs) 22:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Your behavior is not appropriate and we are no where near being able to discuss content at this point. I believe you will soon be blocked; we can discuss content at the talk page when your block is over. I have no doubt that the article can be improved.Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Back Again

I imagine you'll recognize Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:4F20:59F:EC70:5997:274F:CDFC. Since you've got more experience than me in this kind of thing, what's the most efficient way to shut this latest reincarnation down? Alephb (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep. I tried filing at AIV; let's see if that flies. Simpler than filing at SPI again. Jytdog (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I wasn't trying to get you to do the work for me -- I was just looking for pointers. But doing the work for me is even better! Alephb (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

All right. You lost me somewhere. It went up on AIV, and, as far as I could reconstruct the page history, they just redirected you to SPI. But, as far as I can tell, you didn't go to SPI or ANI. Is there some process I'm missing here, or did we just get lucky and someone happened to look in and see what was going on? Alephb (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

no, they just gave up this round after you reverted everything. IP hoppers are just a pain in butt.. Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I see a block record here, though. I'm seeing a rangeblock connecting this user to a nest of socks related to a user called Diabedia. I'm not even going to try to figure out if the two webs of sockery are from the same source. Probably should shouldn't waste too much time over-analysing this stuff, lest it drive me bonkers. Alephb (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh yay! Admins do as they will. Another level of mystery.:) at some point it would be useful to figure out if Diabedia is the same as BedrockPerson.... Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Aerotoxic syndrome 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. 77.174.91.92 (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

NPOV warning

Hello, I'm 77.174.91.92. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 77.174.91.92 (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss at Talk:Aerotoxic syndrome. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 77.174.91.92 (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello J. I just wanted to let you know that this IP has been blocked. I hope you have a pleasant weekend in spite of this stuff. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 04:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

thanks for your note! Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Dear Jytdog, for saving the wee micro article, Velvet complex. scope_creep (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for calling it out in the first place. :) Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Endometriosis

Hi I have no idea how Wiki edits work, the Endometriosis description is missing vital information so I created an account to add a couple of sentences in hope to clarify the condition. I thought it had not worked so I repeated my edit a few times. I did not realise that a reference source should be provided for anything submitted, which of course makes complete sense. I will find the relevant sources before making any future edits and I apologise for violating Wiki edit rules.

Kind regards Faustinezw Faustinezw (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Immune checkpoint

Hi, you removed edits with a reference indicating that it did not meet MEDRS criteria. The reference was a review from a well established biomedical journal. I'm unclear which of the criteria it did not meet and would appreciate specific feedback on this. thanks in advance.Accuracynow (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

From 1996. See WP:MEDDATE. Also the part of the article above the table of contents is called the lead and what we do there is described in WP:LEAD. All the lead does, is summarize the body. So there should be nothing in the lead that is not already in the body. Thanks for wanting to improve the article!

Please also do take some to review WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDHOW which provide some important information about how we edit content about health and medicine... Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

A first?

We seem to have accomplished the rare feat of getting a policy adopted by the community... twice. Kudos. GMG^talk 15:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

i don't take credit for that. i am glad we are improving policies. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Experimental design

Did you find that notion as amusing as I did? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

if it is true that the person was doing this for a school project, am guessing it was junior high. :) Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

At best, lol. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Jytdog, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Bumf

"Useless or tedious printed information or documents" — Merriam-Webster gives the usage example "a lot of public relations bumf about the company's new products:. Basically, it's what we used to call what we now usually call spam. It's not used as much as it used to be, but still useful sometimes. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

ah thanks! a new word. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

CGRP

I am a neurologist working with CGRP antagonist and felt I knew enough to add some information on the page. Not sure why you removed them as I left credible citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrainDoc529 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

We avoid press releases as much as possible. btw on the internet no one knows you are a dog. Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

He isn't a dog, he's a Doc!! -Roxy, the dog. barcus 20:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Sophisticated spam

I came across a new editor, Udaybhatia (1 edit so far) who inserted [2] JavaScript that would, I think, load Google served ads into this article. I left a level four Spam warning because of the use of JavaScript. I'll keep an eye on the editor's contributions. Should I request a block if there is a repeat with no intervening legit edits? Also, should the JavaScript be over sighted to avoid giving others ideas?

On a lighter note, my iPad inserted "me nose" between "who" and "inserted" above—who watches the spellcheckers? — Neonorange (Phil 10:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

damn spell checkers. :) yes absolutely please report if that happens again. ick. Jytdog (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

note that Pigsonthewing has requested an edit filter to catch this in the future. Should not be a problem any longer. Good on him. Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) If such scripts would really get executed, it appears to be a serious vulnerability of Mediawiki. If you confirm that it does, I suggest also addressing it at WP:VPT. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 18:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

that is way over my head. i am not a tech person.Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I just checked and the HTML displays in the article text, meaning that it was properly escaped as invalid wikisource, which is a good sign that this vulnerability is absent. This means that although the attempt was indeed to insert instructions to load a script, Mediawiki would not output it as raw HTML and browsers would not load it, thankfully. So no worries, afterall (and that's good to know). —PaleoNeonate – 18:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

great! thanks for clarifying that. still a vandalism attempt, but a failed one.Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

should probably say...

You and I butt heads almost as often as we see eye-to-eye, but IMHO you're a damn good editor who does a lot of good for the project, and are a joy to work with every time we get together to improve something. That's pretty much verbatim what I told Bish and I sure wasn't lying. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for the drama.

I like that we butt heads as often as we agree. :) Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Me too. Regardless of the intensity of the resulting stars, it's cold, hard evidence that we're not just following the pack, as it were. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I know that you have been angry at me lately, and I hope that it's OK for me to post this (if not, think of me as a butthead!). But I sincerely want you to know that I was worried about you, and, above and beyond any disagreements we have, I sincerely respect and value you as a member of the editing community. All the best, --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

thanks for your note - that was very kind of you. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Your work has been critical to improving Wikipedia. And thus glad to see your remaining with us. Yah COI issues are incredibly controversial and working in this area is generally a thankless task. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

it gets harrowing sometimes and if it ever comes to it that i lose the confidence of the people i trust like Guy to the extent i thought i had, it will be time to go. fortunately this was a misunderstanding. Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Doc James. Sometimes I think your approach might be too aggressive, but for the purpose of improving Wikipedia they have been incredibly beneficial. Thank you! Alex Shih (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Alex. I'll try to keep the too aggressive thing in mind. I do try to keep that in mind. not well enough always... Jytdog (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

CREATES Act (US bill)

Hi Jytdog,

If you have the chance, please review and take a look at the article I recently created today on the CREATES Act. I found a few interesting topics that would be interesting to expand upon relating to the FDA's Risk Evaluation Mitigation Strategy with Elements to Assure Safe Use. Figured you have an interest in the topic with some of your previous editing, and would appreciate a keen eye on expanding this—thanks!

Regards, Shaded0 (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! Please see the talk page...Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

query

You removed entirely 2018 info to restore 2012 source wrt prostate cancer? OK. Here's hoping your docs don't read Wikipedia when it comes to interpreting PSA. It would be helpful (since I do not have journal access) if someone could update the entire suite. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

So nice to see you back! Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	I hereby award Jytdog and Masem the two halves of this barnstar for their work and discussions regarding Malacidin. LukeSurl t c 14:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

CCCLM

There are more than 30 colleges with separate pages for both Oxford and Cambridge, and 14 for UC Berkeley and countless others for U.S. institutions. Brown University and several other medical schools have sub-pages that describe individualized curricula as colleges or even tracts within colleges. Can you explain to me the difference, particularly in the latter scenario? The only reason that the article is redundant is because you've chosen to remove all content and summarized it with significant brevity. The distinction of a college within a university is the presence of an acting dean, individual admission process, and alternative curriculum and educational aims. This article distinguishes these. If you take issue with the content of the article this can and should be discussed, but your unilateral decision as to what constitutes an institution of higher learning is not appropriate. The individual entry stood for almost 9 years without issue. I propose that the article stands with a link added to the content you've placed in the main CWRU page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PTRL2003 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The Cleveland Clinic has abused the hell out of Wikipedia to promote itself, and that time is over. Yes it went unaddressed for a long time. No more.

That article has been merged and the subject is covered in the university article. And please disclose any connection you have to the clinic or this college per the COI guideline. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The Cleveland Clinic as an institution, and its history of abuses (of which apparently I'm not familiar) are not relevant to this argument, which is granular and procedural in nature. This dispute is over whether or not an existing page should have been deleted and redirected without room for discussion. I cannot see a promotional aspect to this dispute. If a university has a college that is distinguished in any capacity from its university, it is within reason for it to be notable. Further, CCLCM is physically distinct and housed separately from CWRU, making the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine both a "college" and a "place". It is a physical and not a theoretical distinction. This puts it in the same company of any number of thousands of buildings, colleges, and other namesakes which have their own page. Let my COI note that I am a graduate of CWRU and lived in Cleveland, OH for 4 years. Do you take issue with the previous content of the page as promotional prior to your deletion and merger? On what grounds are you opposed to it having its own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PTRL2003 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Please indent your posts (we do that by adding the appropriate number of colons in front, as you can see when you look at this in the editing window). and please sign your posts by typing exactly four tildas at the end) Like many conflicted/advocacy editors, you are blowing off the basics in your urgency.

Thanks for disclosing a connection with the university. Would you please disclose your connection with this college? Happy to discuss the content, after the foundational issues are worked through. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure- I am not connected to the college but as a CRWU alumnus I admit there is bias towards appropriate university hierarchy being reflected. I can understand if this disqualifies me from edits based on advocacy rules. However, I am not requesting content changes, just structural correction. There is no real urgency here. But, I'm effectively brand new to this so I'm just learning the system. Perhaps after this I'll go find something else to irritate me that I feel needs correction and be more facile when I do it.PTRL2003 (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replyig (and for indenting and signing). If you like, please open a discussion at Talk:Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine to see if folks there think splitting Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine back out would improve Wikipedia. More generally, for an as-condensed-as-possible orientation to Wikipedia and how it works, please see User:Jytdog/How. You might also want to read WP:BOOSTER with regard to your alma mater - it describes the epidemic problems we have articles about universities and colleges. :) Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

"Spam" references

Hi, you seem to have reverted a page I edited Cochlear implant. Could you please clarify:

1. Which references you believe I added constitute spam and why? They do not appear to fall under any of the three criterion listed.
2. Why you've reverted the page to a version that contains the statement "there is some risk that it may cause people who never had tinnitus to get it."? This statement was unsupported by references and is untrue.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dientboy (talk • contribs) 23:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dientboy: WP:SPAM mentions adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced. Further down, it mentions people replacing good or dead URLs with links to commercial sites or their own blogs. That would include linking to sites that put up "sources" merely to sell products and services, as Medel.com and Audiologyonline.com do. The third source, which would be legitimate, still fails in that it is a primary study and not a secondary source or tertiary meta-analysis (see WP:MEDRS).

As for the unsourced statement regarding tinnitus, it is in the intro, which summarizes the body. In the body of the article, in the section "Efficacy", it discusses its effect on tinnitus with a source (a systemic review from 2015, more thorough and recent than a single study from 2001). Up to 10% of patients who have never had tinnitus do get it after getting the implants. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I see that this user got a level-4 warning after having made a single edit. That was over-the-top. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that was perhaps too harsh, but then Dientboy looks awfully similar to 18.111.21.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Gregorybarry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). SmartSE (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, unless a CU tells me otherwise, I can only believe that 18.111.. is Dientboy. I can't guarantee that 18.111.. is also Gregorybarry, but as drafts don't show up in search engines like articles, it's so unlikely that an IP would show up to edit a draft edited by an SPA with a COI that I again would need a CU saying "nope" to assume they're distinct.

@Dientboy: I'd like a good explanation for this. Like, really good: so good I'll need to shower and make you breakfast. Because otherwise I'm ready to block you for sockpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, that makes it a lot better in my mind; obviously, I didn't know that backstory. Just don't do that for genuinely new users. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• There is a deeper yet history. The cochlear implant articles and some others have a very bad history of spam, and particularly from MED-EL. It got so bad that I actually emailed the founder and CEO a year or two ago and asked her to ask her people to stop. To my surprise I got a back a very cordial and apologetic note from her. It has unfortunately started up again. We do not need refs from "MEDEL blog". The spam is particularly glaring added only to the lead, with nothing added to the body. You also might have noticed that the edit right before Dientboy's was yet other spam from some UK blogger.

In general, among corporate promotional editors in health and medicine, probably the worst are from medical device companies in my experience. (It was people from Medtronic who went after Doc James, emailing his university and the like.) Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I got tired of waiting and blocked Gregorybarry/Dientboy (GB for a week, sock indef). Gonna go trade cigarettes for duct tape. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

fwiw, i had not thought that gregorybarry was dientboy (just hadn't thought of it). but i trust your judgement. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

OH I see, it is through the IP which made the same edit to CI and also edited the draft on the alliance. Yes I totally agree now. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for the explanation. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Neuralink Revision

I want some clarification to why you deleted my revision on Neuralink page. You claimed "No mission statements" but most of my contribution was not that, and there is clearly a mission statement that you kept at the start of the second paragraph. You seem to be purging this page on a regular basis. Edit part of my contribution, but don't get rid of it all? Zennox1 (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

happy to discuss content at the article talk page. if you review that page you will see that there has been lots of discussion there about what to include. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Ludwig's angina

Thanks for your kind reply and edit. We are currently revising in order to produce a better version for all readers or audiences. Would you prefer me to send in the edited version to you prior to uploading it directly onto the main page?

Hope to hear from you soon. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerprince95 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your note. What do you mean by "we"?

Also, usually we edit incrementally. But if you want to work on drafts you can do that in a sandbox; I made one for you here: User:Gingerprince95/Sandbox. You can draft there, then post a link and ask for feedback at the article talk page if you like. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor Re: questioning of meta-analysis

Dear Jytdog,

I would like a clarification why I am not allowed to post peer-reviewed commentary for the 2017 systematic review regarding efficacy and side effects of SSRIs. The conclusions that appear on the page are merely a result of methodological inaccuracies and blatant errors, as pointed out by the commentary. The reasons I have heard from you and other editors so far are i) The criticism wasn't heavy enough and/or this is not notable. I could not agree less - such lengthy commentary is exceptional and the result is that none of the main conclusions of the original paper are supported ii) Single comments shouldn't be used to refute reviews. Other authors have also criticised the paper, see for example here or discussion here (in Danish) . If one source of criticism isn't enough, I'm happy to post both letters and/or the news article. Thank you.

References

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.109.14 (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Please post at the article talk page, Talk: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, and I will reply there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is KarimKoueider and his unconstructive edit. Matthew_hk tc 20:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Acknowledge having read your COI comment

Hi there,

Can we have a discussion about my proposed edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7A04:B900:2134:7AC1:9986:D354 (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what article or what edit you are talking about.... but sure I am generally happy to talk. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Jytdog, please see the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding edit war with Perky28.Perky28 (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)