User talk:Jytdog

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by .

Welcome!

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

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Edcolins (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Information-theoretic death article

I mentioned in passing in the "Medical definition of death" AfD discussion that I was preparing a rewrite of the Information-theoretic death article, which at that time had been reduced to a redirect. In the meantime, I see that a cryonics zealot with no apparent knowledge of the editing history of this article, and no good sense about how cryonics must be treated in an encyclopedia, restored the article text with all its problems. This triggered your understandable deletion nomination. My question is: Shall I wait until the article is deleted before recreating a better version, or shall I substitute a better version while the present deletion discussion is still underway? I know that the latter is encouraged by Wikipedia, however if I'm able to finish the new version at all before the discussion concludes, it would be very late into the AfD discussion, and would likely still be deleted on strength of all the Delete votes cast against the previous version. A fair hearing would then be impossible because recreation of the new article for evaluation on its merits by interested parties would be grounds for Speedy Deletion because of the previous AfD decision.

Whatever I do, I don't want to get on the bad side of a Wikipedian with 30,000+ edits (i.e. you) by handling this inappropriately. Assuming the rewrite will still require a few more days to complete (good sourcing is lots of work!), what do you think I should do for the rewrite to get a fresh appraisal? Cryobiologist (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note; it's a good question. I've been wrong before as we saw with the targeted cooling merge I wanted to do, so it could be that a whole article could be created that is neutral. I would suggest starting to build the content in whatever article it would be a natural subsection of. If that subsection grows naturally to the point where it needs to be split into its own article, that can be handled in a WP:SPLIT discussion at that article's Talk page. No need for drama and things can unfold in whatever time they need. :) Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to suggest a redirect to Cryonics (as a jargon term), noting though that Cryobiologist (if anyone could) is working on a good version - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David in my view that increases the likelihood of a no consensus close, but as you will. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just went ahead and published a new version of the Information-theoretic death article. There ended up being too much material to shoehorn into the cryonics article, and it would have been an awkward fit anyway because the idea has crept too far into other places. Cryobiologist (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PJ Media typo

OMG! How did I miss that typo.

Yes, I intended to change 2014 (which was also probably a typo) to 2004, which is the correct date. Thanks. Fish Man (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For being bold and helping clear up that COIN case! Thanks! ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thx, sorry for not helping earlier. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deflation vs inflation

Might I humbly suggest that you get the difference between deflation and inflation straight before you add claims to articles that certain activities are "deflationary".--greenrd (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting that. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William L. Uanna

Hello. I am writing you to ask if I can go to other editors, on their Talk Page, editors that have contributed to William L. Uanna and get their advice? Am I all alone in this now? Can I request advice and help from other editors? This is my last question. BrownHairedGirl suggested I read the policies, I will. I am sure somewhere in them is the answer to this question. But, can you tell me this? I would appreciate it? CIC7 (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution when copying within WP

Thanks for fixing Pethidine. I knew I needed to provide attribution, but did not know how. I found the instructions within Wikipedia confusing. In desperation, I made the translation obvious, and hoped someone would either complain or fix it.

Next time, I will know what to do.

Thanks again. Comfr (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sure Jytdog (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.
DHeyward (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at ANI regarding your objectivity. The thread is (Enforcer) Jytdog has lost objectivity in COIN. Thank you.

The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.28Enforcer.29_Jytdog_has_lost_objectivity_in_COIN Jytdog (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing material on other Charter school pages

If you keep on talking about the laundry list of schools on IDEA Public Schools, why don't you do the same for YES Prep Public Schools, who also happens to have a similar list of schools on their page? Eastwood Academy also has a laundry list of universities that students have been accepted to with a reference to a self published article, why don't you delete that portion from their article? De88 (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is full of puddles of bad content, alongside the puddles of good content. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Jytdog (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well then fix it, since you basically rewrote the whole IDEA article, might as well contribute to other Charter school articles. That would only be fair at this point. De88 (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where you are coming from. Jytdog (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me reiterate myself: You rewrote the article IDEA Public Schools to make it "less promotional". There are other articles with laundry list of schools and universities such as YES Prep and Eastwood Academy. I am asking for you to change those edits since you did the same to the IDEA article. None of this "bad content", "good content" BS. Comprehend? De88 (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on IDEA Public Schools are extremely sloppy. For someone criticizing the promotional tone on this article, your edits are not of any help either. Try to improve your edits on this page. De88 (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poor, sloopy edits on IDEA Public Schools page

Your edits on the IDEA page are extremely sloppy and "rushed". Please fix grammar and punctuation. Some info is also vague. De88 (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat like putting "sloopy" in a title I suspect. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motivação

Hi, concerning this revert of Motivação replacing mental disorder with psychiatric illness, see also a similar edit, and I recall having seen them do the same thing to other articles: [1], [2]. Also reverted: [3]. To me the difference is not obvious, so I will not revert. I thought you might like to know. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that user keeps making these idiosyncratic edits. Jytdog (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious Edit ; Site Deep Sky Browser

This edit[4] should have not been made, and I would request an explanation on why this was done. It is clear that this editor was doing WP:PROMOTION, but reverting this just reinforces this User's own deliberate actions. There is more going on here, and by saying "Hi Sebagr. I work on COI issues along with Lemongirl and Platypusofdoom.", I can only conclude you have ignored the deliberate avoidance of this User to promote his page. User: Sebagr, based on the evidence, has deliberately avoided telling about the association with this site, which is an objectionable offense. (By closing the WP:COIN, allows this sanction to be avoided.) User: Sebagr statement "Ok, I didn't mean to promote it..." is a falsehood, as with many other statements with the section stated within "Wrapping things up" on that User page. Regardless of the "disclosure", which this User has deliberately avoided, means this site cannot be added into any Wikipedia pages. This is made more prevalent, especially if the User's claims of a "consortium" exists. Although I have overwhelming evidence this is COI, I have even more than exposes the purpose of these edits. ~~I have more~~ IMO, this User should be automatically banned from editing pages on astronomical topics altogether. Please justify these actions, or I'll be posting an WP:ANI for avoiding proper protocols in solving this issue. Clearly disappointed.Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your note. I do understand that promotional editing is upsetting. I get that.

However...

Per your link Sebagr did finally disclose and they also posted at WT:AST as we requested, to see if AST is open to the link or not; I see that one person has said thumbs up and two have said thumbs down. It will be interesting to see how that develops - we do things by consensus here and if folks at WT:AST are OK with the link being added, then it can be. Also, based on their contribs they have not continued adding the links.

Arianewiki1, Sebagr is doing what we ask editors with a COI to do. Many many people when they first come to Wikipedia use it for promotion like Sebagr did, and don't understand the whole COI thing and need educating. When we try to educate them, some of them don't/won't "get it" and just plow ahead, and they generally get indefinitely banned. As I acknowledged on your Talk page Sebagr was indeed resistant at first, but as I also noted and as I've described above, they came around.

I have been working on COI issues for a pretty long time, and I don't think you or I could get consensus for a TBAN of any kind for someone who comes around that way. And if you bring an ANI against me that too will probably go no where, since what you are asking is not realistic. You are of course free to file it. As I also noted on your talk page, you are taking a really confrontational approach, and that is, in my view, good for no one. I will now add explicitly that it is not good for you. Hounding people who are actually complying with the COI guideline and PROMO policy - now that they are aware of it - can come back to bite you.

If I have missed something (like maybe the links are going back in under an IP address or something) please do tell me.

If you want me to try to explain anything more, I will do.

Best regards Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive Brokers

Hi again Jytdog,

I am working on the draft to merge and improve both Interactive Brokers and Interactive Brokers Group, and I thought you'd be interested in the result. There may yet be things to tweak or add, however I'd like your thoughts and comments if you would. The draft is located here: User:Ɱ/sandbox30. Thanks. $ɱ$ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw now that you're working on improving the wording at WP:COI. I appreciate that, as the wording has always been very negative and scorning towards the process, when it can yield some good, when done properly. Even right now, it looks as disdaining and accusatory as an anti-GMO website. Just saying, glad someone can see things clearly. And, yes, management is very important to note; it's not covered very well elsewhere, which may lead COI editors to do things the wrong way.

ɱ

(talk) · vbm · coi) 21:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Empty nose syndrome

Hi, I saw you took an interest in the Empty nose syndrome page. I'd really appreciate your advice on how I can get some editors with proper expertise to look at the page and help me get it into shape and keep it that way. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 08:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will do! I am all intrigued. Got caught up in the salt articles which is going to take me a bit of time... Jytdog (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - much appreciated whenever you can. I feel like the little Dutch boy except my finger is up a curiously capacious nostril. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 08:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm admiring your work from afar. Please let me know what I can do to support it (including keeping my mouth shut on the talk page if you think that's what's needed). Dubbin^{u | t | c} 14:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do as you will! There are three very recent reviews so revising wasn't difficult. We just have to keep the sourcing level high per WP:MEDRS and hew closely to MEDMOS. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Jytdog. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Your reverts to remove advertising/brochure tags at Stanford University. The entire article reads like a sales brochure and problems need to be fixed; if you don't wish to fix the tone and work towards a more balanced article, then please leave the tags on.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I and MelanieN have each been actually editing the article to WP:FIXIT. All you have been doing is making drama. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CiproKills

I've already reported this name to WP:UAA after some of the earlier edits. Meters (talk) 05:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

great. Jytdog (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's back at the article again, but I'm signing off (and out of my depth in any case). Meters (talk) 05:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Lewis

Hey Jytdog. I know you do good work with COI editors. Could you take a look at Maria Lewis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Gretz2471 has admitted to a COI, and I suspect other editors of the article may also have a COI. Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to edit war warning

Ok I will add the subject to the talk page. I forgot I added that to gene drive didnt see the revert . And you left this comment on my Userpage - please don't write on anyone's Userpage - they are for users alone. Thanks. Quantanew (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. btw, left both my comments (the edit war warning in this dif and the moving of your reply here) on your User Talk page. You made a comment on my User page (which is different from a User Talk page) here. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stanford University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kappa Alpha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

For your scholarly rewrite of the Empty nose syndrome article and sang froid in the face of the backlash on its talk page. Dubbin^{u | t | c} 11:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metamizol

Hi Jytdog,

As I'm getting more familiar with Wikipedia, I realize I should have used this talk page. I apologize. I've read the suggested stuff and reviewed my contribution thoroughly.

I guess we both agree that the previous "History" based entirely on the activist book "Bad Medicine ..." was inappropriate pharma-industry bashing. The IAAAS was not "commissioned" by Hoechst. Not every type of support from pharma industry is bad.

There is broad consensus that the two Swedish studies differed from all the other studies, which were much larger. People disagree re the study methodology. Kramer et al. started a "response war" with their criticism of the IAAAS. Several articles (and reviews) note that the second Swedish study included cases co-medicated with known risk drugs and treated longer than the approved use for, e.g., kidney stones and surgery (typically: one day). The review by Nikolova also reviews a study suggesting that Scandinavians may have some special genetic risk factors, but that's not broadly accepted and, thus, I didn't include it.

The regulatory back-and-forth in Sweden is also just a fact and of interest, in part, because it rarely happens that regulatory agencies reverse themselves twice on the same drug.

The question now is where to put this information. My suggestion remains to put the estimates at the end of the first paragraph and describe this regulatory history under "History".

I really don't understand why you call asking for advice "warring".

Kmwittko (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem

What is your problem man? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.59.12.46 (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning re Stone

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Randolph Stone. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 05:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do discuss your edits on the Talk page - you jumped in and started making changes while the discussion was still under way. Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bfpage |leave a message 18:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

tDCS

Dear Jytdog, please find comments to the revisions (in bold) that I suggested to the tDCS article:

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a form of neurostimulation which uses constant, low current delivered to the brain area of interest via electrodes on the scalp.

This statement is not true, as it is unknown whether and where the brain is stimulated when attaching electrodes to the head and delivering very weak currents. 99% of the current flows over the skull, while 0.9% is shunted through the cerebral fluid and 0.1% of the currents actually enters the brain (but probably not immediately underneath the electrodes). Thus, stating that currents are delivered to the brain area of interest is misleading. Please also read the recent article in Science Magazine on this issue: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/cadaver-study-casts-doubts-how-zapping-brain-may-boost-mood-relieve-pain

It was originally developed to help patients with brain injuries or psychiatric conditions like major depressive disorder. tDCS appears to be somewhat effective for treatment of depression. However, there is no good evidence that it is useful for cognitive enhancement in healthy people, memory deficits in Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease, schizophrenia, pain, nor improving upper limb function after stroke.

This whole paragraph is misleading. First, tDCS was already applied by the ancient Egyptians using electric catfish and found its way into the literature about 200 years ago (http://www.aipass.org/files/TDCS_State%20of%20the%20art.pdf). It was certainly not purposefully "developed" to treat brain injuries. The underlying mechanisms of tDCS are widely unknown (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4368894/) as it was impossible to record brain oscillations (brain electric activity) during tDCS. However, recently, a new method was developed that allows for in vivo assessment of brain oscillations during tDCS (published in Nature Communications, one of the highest impact journals in the field). Given the controversy around tDCS effects, stating that the mechanisms are unknown seemed appropriate, and referring to recent neurotechnological advancements that promise to uncover these mechanisms did not occur to me being "spam referencing".

Also, use of terms like "no good evidence" or "somewhat effective" seems vastly imprecise for an encyclopedic article. Either there is evidence or not, so why not better provide the actual information about effectiveness (or its absence) by referring to the effect size as calculated by Horvath et al. It should be noted, though, that Horvath's let to substantial controversy in the field due to methodological issues. I have thus toned down the paragraph by revising into:

While there is limited evidence that tDCS is useful for cognitive enhancement in healthy people (probably due to ceiling effects), memory deficits in Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease,[4] schizophrenia, pain, or improving upper limb function after stroke, tDCS appears to be effective for treatment of depression.

Best wishes! Elias A. Rosenberg (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should discuss this at the article talk page - if you would be so kind as to copy your content there, I would be happy to reply there. Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D.V. Rao Speedy Deletion

As I noted on the talk page of the aforementioned page, the reason the article was marked with speedy deletion is the result of consensus at the AfD discussion. -- Gestrid (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not how it works. You cant speedy an article already at AFD. Mainly because if an AFD was closed with the result 'Marked for speedy delete' the speedy could then be removed and article sent back to AFD. An AFD can be closed with 'delete', 'merge', 'keep' etc. If people think it should be deleted, the AFD will just be closed with delete. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glycopyrronium bromide

You accuse me of trying to start an edit war, but that's exactly what you are doing. You have reverted my edit 3 times. Moreover, each of my edits included additional citations. The final edit provided two peer-reviewed citations. It's ego trip "I own this article" crap like this that pushes people away from contributing to Wikipedia. Arx Fortis (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had opened a section already on the talk page, here: Talk:Glycopyrronium_bromide#Ménière's_disease; please reply there. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TechnologyOne Edit

Hi Jytdog, you recently messaged our corporate user Technonebrisbane explaining that we were in violation of Wikipedia's COF guidelines. To try and amend the situation we've created a new user to address the issue (still a corporate representative but with a generic name) and have added a section to the Talk page for review. Can you please take a look and provide advise on whether we are on the right track. We are trying to be non-promotional and include only the facts and would appreciate your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasondaly724 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How awesome is that!! I will check in. Thanks very much for working with us. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog, thank you so much for helping out with our Acquisitions section. We've just added an updated "History" section to our talk page. Could you take a look and let us know if we are OK to publish this? Also, please note, if this is approved we have a "Timeline" section we are going to add which will be an extensive addition to this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasondaly724 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've updated the History section again on our Talk page. Should be better this time? unsigned comment added by Jasondaly724 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polite request

Hi, Jytdog. Can you please redact the following comment from Josh's AN/I report?

User:Checkingfax should weigh in here and acknowledge they made a big mess of things. If they don't recommend I 24 hour block for them. Jytdog (talk) 3:23 pm, 15 June 2016, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC−7)

That comment was made a full hour after I had already replied and is indeed nested inside of my reply section. Thank you. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I redacted the weigh in part. You didn't acknowledge that you made a big mess of things. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jytdog. OK. Thank you for that. Which part of the mess was big? In my reply I acknowledge and apologize for the messes I made. Those messes were quickly fixed by Sainsf, Josh and me. My original edit made no messes. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to continue the ANI here. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hi, Jytdog. OK. Sorry. I am not trying to continue the ANI here. I was going to post a PS to you here that I just went back to make a reply and Josh's AN/I report was partially closed so I have asked the closing admin if I can make a closing statement along the line of Josh's. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my edits on the Iglesia Ni Cristo Page?

This is the first time I've posted to Wikipedia and I'm still learning of the proper protocols.

First of all, the information that is currently there about its membership size is incorrect. The data I provided came from the official Philippine government's decadal census of 1990, 2000, and 2010 per 1990 Philippine National Census of Population and Housing. Table 5. Household Population by Religious Affiliation, Sex and Region 1990. p.22 and The Philippines in Figures 2014 p. 27 (https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/2014%20PIF.pdf). [Retrieved Nov 2, 2015]

Yes, my book is a criticism of the INC religion, but the data I provided is valid and the membership size is based on historical trends of where they were in 2010 by pushing it forward with the natural growth rate of the nation of 1.9%/year per http://www.popcom.gov.ph/population-statistics to the end of 2015. I cited my book because it contained the data and tables. 2.76 million is the most accurate number. Not three million, and especially not ten million (which I already heard in 1989, before the 1990 census showed the real number was just 1.4 million). You will note that I did NOT criticize their theology or practices.

You kept Karl Keating's Catholic Answers figures despite that data is pulled out of the sky. If one of my staff posted my information and not myself, would it have been acceptable?

Furthermore, the ethnic composition, while anecdotal from my personal observation when I attended several INC worship services, can easily be verified by just going to one of their churches during services and looking around. AFAIK, there are no formal studies done on their ethnic compositions.

Lastly, what I said about fear by outsiders is absolutely true - just ask non-INC Filipinos, especially Philippine-based publishers. Just google "Iglesia ni Cristo" and "violence" - I've personally experienced attempted intimidation and others I've spoken to told me stories of how it was with the forced conversions during the Marcos era.

Please restore my edits. Thank you. EdwardKWatson (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)EdwardKWatson[reply]

Happy to reply, if you would copy this to the Talk page of the article. You should also check in at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Iglesia_ni_Cristo Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog, I've reposted to the INC article's talk page and made further elaborations explaining my edits. Please reexamine your decision and restore my edits. Thanks!EdwardKWatson (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)EdwardKWatson[reply]

Wiki Pages deleted by you

It seems quite unreasonable that you had nominated the page Saket Suman for speedy deletion, after which it was ultimately deleted. You found the article "rather spammy" and the references "flimsy (most are stuff published by Suman himself)". Now what are your grounds for finding the article spammy? That it tends to misinform? Pay attention please, all the links cited in the article were from trusted sources, newspapers which have been running respectfully for over a hundred years. Much older than the wikipedia, in some cases. Yet you find these sources spammy! Please care to explain. Secondly, you state in the nomination page that most references are flimsy because "most are stuff published by Suman himself". Now do you have any sense of how a newspaper works? You could have paused for a while and flipped through the pages of some other "Print journalists" and seen the references. Like an actor is known for his films and roles, a print journalist is known by the "byline" that he earns from newspapers. You have questioned this very fundamental of journalism and deleted the page on grounds that they were written by Suman himself. Exactly, these were the proves of his notability. Widely read articles in India's oldest and most respected newspaper! If you have time, pause, contemplate and think whether you, by sheer arrogance of the authority you command, are misusing it and depriving the general readers of some valuable information that they might be interested in. I grew up reading Suman's articles in The Statesman as a child and then I created this page, not because I know him personally but simply on grounds that many like me have grown up reading his works. He is perhaps the only journalist in India still writing a weekly column on books and literature, will you also suggest that books are irrelevant now? Let me know your thoughts and if you could, suggest ways to improve the page and retrieve it, rather than deleting and sending it to oblivion. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johny Rhoods (talk • contribs) 06:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(comment) "I grew up reading Suman's articles in The Statesman as a child" Saket is relatively young and has only recently started contributing to the Statesman. Besides, if you don’t know him personally how can File:Saketsumanin2015.jpg be your own work? Anyway, I’ve listed the article at AFD. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(reply) Suggest ways to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johny Rhoods (talk • contribs) 10:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis (drug)

You need to be more clear as in what your referring to as I never added the content or source you are removing. Think you.-- Moxy (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made a note on the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good and I agree....just so you know I never edited that content. -- Moxy (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious

If I understood the whole thing correctly, you probably can't put in a comment, but I'm just curious whether you've been watching what's going on over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Genetically_modified_organisms. None of my business, of course, but after all the fantastic work you had put in on that section, I thought you might be watching. Adv4Ag (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect you'll get no response at all because of Jytdogs topic ban. He isn't being rude if he doesn't reply, just cautious. -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Roxy and thanks for asking, Adv4Ag. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Physical Attractiveness

Hi. I appreciate your effort trying to find some useful material in that long section, but I think we need a better source than "Elliot, Candice. "The Pink Tax." Listen Money Matters RSS. Listen Money Matters, 29 Mar. 2015. Web." If Pink Tax is in common usage, perhaps it would be possible to find a better source for that? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes, done. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Materials warning templates

Hey, thank you so much for helping out with my edit requests at Applied Materials. Do you think, with the additional secondary sources, that it might be time to remove the primary sources warning template from the top of the article? Actually, the same goes for the COI warning template, which is nearly four years old. Would really appreciate your thoughts on any further steps that might need to be taken to merit the removal of those templates. Thank you, again, for taking the time. Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Zaiva

I noticed that you reverted my removal of Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues from User talk:Dr.Zaiva. The reason I did so is that the user has been inactive for more than a week. It's considered best practice to leave promotional usernames alone if they haven't edited since being told about the username policy rather than blocking, and that category is for tracking active users only. Thanks, James086^Talk 22:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

where do you get this one week thing? Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I get the one week thing from the top of the category page. James086^Talk 03:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering. So it does say. Makes no sense to me but I see you have justification. Jytdog (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the reason is that if only active accounts would appear in that category, a user could quickly see if they the users are worth blocking/renaming or just leaving alone. There's not much point blocking a forgotten account. I've been trying to clean it out because it has so many inactive and blocked accounts in there so the signal:noise ratio is tiny. Once it's just the relevant users and if we can stay on top of it, the category will be useful again. James086^Talk 05:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see your goal. It does seem useful to have a category for accounts like this if anybody ever wants to gather data. I wonder if it would make sense to have something like "inactive accounts with username issues" and instead of just removing, the cat could be exchanged. Even better if the cat were date-stamped and a bot could do that. :) Jytdog (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, categories like the speedy image categories could work, but I don't have the know-how to write a bot and until this category is cleared, I'm not sure how many users get added per day. If the number is quite low it's probably manageable manually, if high a bot might be worth it. It's probably 2 weeks until that info is available. James086^Talk 05:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well good luck! Thanks for cleaning things up. :) Jytdog (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I know you meant nothing but the best with your recommendation to read REFB at Draft:Granulomatous-Lymphocytic Interstitial Lung Disease (GLILD). But I thought I should point out that manually marking the footnote numbers, as the new editor did, is a permitted WP:Inline citation format (see the section on "Manual citations").

I'm going to change the format in a moment, because I think it will be easier in the end, but if he reverts me, that's fine, too. (Technically, I should sit down and have a discussion with him first about it, but most new editors are happy to have their efforts look "normal", so I'm going with the odds here and assuming that he, too, actually wants the strictly optional but very popular system of little blue clicky numbers.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Great you are helping him. btw I no where said anything about footnote style (e.g use of ref tags)- not here and not here. I added PMIDs and URLs where full text was available, and noted the sources that didn't meet MEDRS; I also pointed him to MEDMOS generally for "people" not "patients" kinds of things. I didn't mind his manual citation style at all. Jytdog (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I should have checked the history, instead of assuming that the only other person who'd edited it was responsible for something as complicated as a hidden HTML comment. It's in the boilerplate, which means that it's screwing up everyone. It begins, "After listing your sources please cite them using inline citations and place them after the information they cite", and if you follow those directions literally, you're going to get a duplicate list of citations – once in a manual list, and again ("after listing your sources") in footnotes. I don't have time to chase this down right now, but it ought to be re-written. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So Which is It?

The revert links to a disamb page. Chronic pelvic pain syndrome, chronic bacterial prostatitis or asymptomatic inflammatory prostatitis? Mannanan51 (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please use edit notes; it saves hassle. I will look and check; it may be all of them. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Greger page edit

Hi, I went to the wikipedia page for Michael Greger and attempted to clean up a few things in the article. There are two references supposedly criticising him, while one actually encouraged his videos, and the other, one could easily argue rests on a shaky foundation. I made a section specifically for opinions about Greger and clarified that the Joe Schwarcz reference is mostly positive yet skeptical (the article melts it into the Harriet Hall reference to make it look as if Joe's criticism was similar to Harriet's and not in favor of Greger) and provided a counter criticism to Harriet Hall's criticism, while also providing a reference for the largest healthcare organization in the US promoting Michael Greger's website as a resource for its patients.

My edit was reverted with a simple claim that my edit was "non-neutral." When I reverted it back, I was told I was "pov-pushing." I take this to mean that the point-of-view of the person who reverted my comments is the proper point-of-view the article must have, that their point-of-view only allows negative comments about this person, and that if you aren't biased against the person the article is about and attempt to say anything that isn't blatantly against him then you're to be considered "non-neutral" and banned from editing.

Can you explain how I was in the wrong? And particularly, so in the wrong that my entire edit had to be undone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:3973:6790:4D4:64BA (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to respond at the article Talk page - that is where you should have brought this up the first time you were reverted. If you copy the comment above there I will respond there. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on the talk page, still waiting on a reply from anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:3973:6790:4D4:64BA (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It takes time - there is WP:NODEADLINE here. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the M.O.

That's how it was at the beginning when I begged for your's and SlimVirgin's help to craft an RfC 2 years ago. Editors have taken possession of that policy, seeing themself as self-proclaimed czars, and they slowly edit the policy. Not enough to draw immediate attention, but over time they're able to make serious changes. Now that you've noticed it, they're calling you disruptive for removing it. Careful, because the next step is to claim you're violating the policy. The ad hominems get stronger from here on out.--v/r - T P 02:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hopefully history won't repeat itself. It is terribly personalized already tho. Jytdog (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wish I could help, but if I got involved, I'd just be a new target of their venom. It's going to take patience. Eventually, they'll cross a line on their own.--v/r - T P 03:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Yes one has to breathe before typing. :) Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I hope you haven't taken anything personal I said during the Arbcom case. I do tend to get heated, but I mean nothing personal.--v/r - T P 03:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was not upset, and I am sorry for upsetting you. We are good I think.Jytdog (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aptus Article

Hi! I am Peterye2005. I am now planning on working on the article about Aptus Treatment Centre. In the month of March this year, we had a discussion about it on my talk page. I have found one source. Here it is: https://www.canadahelps.org/en/charities/aptus/?gclid=CL7ppN7Lvs0CFYSDaQod1x8A3Q. I do not know if it is or is not independent from the topic and if there is significant coverage. Can you please tell me? Thank you. Peterye2005 (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that site is a wiki see here) so no per WP:SPS. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I will try to find other reliable sources which are not self-published. Peterye2005 (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]