User talk:Jytdog/Archive 26

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jytdog. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Hugo Gottesmann

Hi, Thank you so much for your help in one of my reference (2) for the year 1915. I added another reference 3 for the year 1916. Gottessman is referenced in 1916 for his awards. WS114WS114 13:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary Jane Doerr (talk • contribs)

sure. Jytdog (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Studio71

Thank you again for your message on my talk. At this point, I'm obviously not trying to push harder than I should and have gone quiet on certain discussions to let things cool down. I understand the controversy of contesting a merge, but do you actually think Studio71 is not notable for a WP? You said I see no real chance in the near future for Studio71 to have its own article in WP. That may change in a year or two.

This is more just for my own understanding: I believe they are notable but why exactly is a contest of the merge not the right thing to do aside from the fact that it will generate more bad feeling for me? Thanks for your patience with me. JacobPace (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

You asked me that already, and I answered already. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! JacobPace (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Notification of GA Reassessment: Behavioral genetics

Behavioural_genetics, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Groceryheist (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Question

Just curious - I do recall at one point you had said that there are holes on Wikipedia that need filling. What kind of examples were you referring to? JacobPace (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

There is always a ton of work to do. Things get outdated and need updating with more current refs; somebody comes through dump a bunch of content into an article throwing off the WEIGHT which then needs rebalancing; people create SPLITs and leave stub content in the main article, which then gets built back up with different content and sourcing, leaving the main article and split article out of sync and leaving us with "meta-editing" gardening work to do; and there all kinds of notable subjects that don't have articles at all. In the fields of stuff I edit about, some day I intend to write Susan Niditch ( biblical scholar, Rich Aldrich (investor in the boston biotech scene), and Barbara Dalton (pharma VC)... I am sure there are holes in subjects you are knowledgeable about too! I don't think there is a universal "to do" list anywhere but I am sure lots of wikiprojects have to do lists you could check. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Will research this over the weekend in more detail. JacobPace (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick follow up question here so I can fully understand. I'm assuming you find these notable through WP:BIO correct? Any specific part that you see validate the notability of these people? No rush at all. You've given me more than is needed as it is. Thank you. JacobPace (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Niditch will fly per WP:PROF; the other two I am not certain. I imagine they will be but since I have not really gone searching yet I am not sure. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, cool. Just wondering. JacobPace (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The Exodus article is one sided and offensive. Please help to resolve.

Please discuss article content on the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

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

The majority of this article is offensive, one sides, anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian. How can you call the history of the majority of the worlds faith (Abrahamic faiths including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) and the history of the nation of Israel a "foundation myth." The author of this article uses untrue and nonobjective generalities like saying "most scholars agree, many scholars agree, a consensus of archaeologists". Being myself a theologians and holder of a masters and doctorate on the subject matter these are just not true. I do not know the best way to edit this post but my attempts to make them objective have been denied. Please help me to know how to make the appropriate corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Aaron Matthew (talk • contribs) 19:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Please post at the article talk page with respect to article content.

You should also be aware that Wikipedia follows scholarship and is not confessional. The history of the Ancient Near East is a scholarly discipline that is conducted in the secular world, like the rest of the discipline of History. I realize this can be frustrating from some religious people. Sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand that postings should be scholarly and not confessional. That is my point. The current post is confessional in that it presents a belief that the historical source material is untrue and disregards the majority of scholarly work that explores the source material including these below just as a few.

United Kingdom Hydrographic Office, Admiralty Chart H2 73 0012 – El 'Aqaba to Duba and Ports on the Sinai Coast, UKHO, Taunton

The Catholic Encyclopaedia

Hansen, P, Timeline from creation to Jesus

Finkelstein, I & Silberman, N (2001), The Bible Unearthed, The Free Press, New York

Gospel Pedlar, James Ussher: The Annals of the World

Merling, D (1999), Did the Israelites Cross the Red Sea or the Gulf of Aqaba?

Shaw, I (2000), Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Uphill, E P (1968), Pithom and Raamses: Their Location and Significance, JNES, Vol.27 No.4

Wyatt Archaeology, The Exodus Conspiracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Aaron Matthew (talk • contribs) 20:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Again please discuss specific article content at the article talk page which is Talk:The Exodus

Also, threading and signing comments on talk pages, are both as fundamental here in Wikipedia as "please" and "thank you" - not doing them will make you come across as rude.

I fixed your indenting above, and a bot signed on your behalf.

We indent by putting colons in front of a comment -- put one more than the person who wrote before you -- the Wikipedia software displays an indent. We call this "threading" - see WP:THREAD.

Please sign your post by typing four tildas at the end (exactly four), and the Wikipedia software will turn that into a "signature" - links to your user page and talk page, and a date stamp.

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Silberman and Finklestein deny the historicity of the Exodus, as does the Oxford History of Egypt. None of the rest of those sources are even remotely reliable, and would only represent scholarship to a fundamentalist who explicitly denies real scholarship. Hell, the first is by a regular contributor to AiG. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Jytog, may I intervene by pointing out that history is a scholarly activity that is also pursued in the religious world, according to multiple traditions, but which traditions are generally accepted even in the "secular" world? I realize this can be frustrating for some non-religious people. Sorry about that. But that's the real world. Evensteven (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Obnoxious edit summaries

can the obnoxious smug shit you are putting in your edit summaries (in re Imprimis edits) - ridiculous. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Tatzelwurm

I object your delete, which I am going to revert, and find your edit comment "This is treating legend as reality. Not OK in Wikipedia" to be quite inane, or insult on my intelligence. Of course I realize these stories are far-fetched, and I expect every conceivably sane-minded reader to figure that out, without requiring a caveat at every step that this may not be the "reality".

If you want to figure out some way to contexutalize without making it overtaxing to read, then you are welcome to do so but you have no grounds to do wholesale delete.

These primary sources are also quite properly introduced here and there through secondary sources, generally 19th and 20th century article pieces in folktale type journals as well. Thank you. --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Cat-headed illustration

On the image file File:Houghton Swi 607.23 - Ouresiphoítes helveticus, fig X.jpg I will explain why you should not have reverted to the old caption "18th century cat-headed illustration".

It misleads the reader into thinking the creature is called Tatzelwurm in the book it is taken from, whereas it is not. Therefore I called it a dragon (in Latin) as it does the book. Additional information like "encountered ca. 1660" was meant as additonal info on the corresponding text, not to dress this up as real. The caption has been amended to "Depiction of the cat-headed dragon claimed to have been encountered on Mt. Kamor". --Kiyoweap (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

again see my talk page

Is there anyway I can notify you when I make edits there or do I always need to leave a message here too? Upoon7 (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't need to notify me at all. You dont need to leave a message here. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Dont delete explanatoy notes that are referenced

Like in your edit here, when my text reads

".. dialects.{{Efn|Dialect of [[Canton of Aargau]].. according to Rochholz}}<ref name=doblhoff-apud-kohlrusch&rochholz/>

isn't it quite obvious that the text enclosed in {{Efn}} is probably given in the same citatin that has "rocholz" in it? Don't delete text as WP:OR without checking if it is in the inline citation. You did this same thing 3 times. --Kiyoweap (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

With regard to this note and the ones above, please post them at the article talk page and I will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

No. If it were a content issue, where you had some source evidence to contradict the information, that would be a worthy topic on the page.

What I am pointing out is that you deleted information claiming WP:OR even though the information was in plain sight in the inline citation I gave. That does not constitute substantive discussion on the topic of Tatzelwurm helpful to others interested in writing about the topic. --Kiyoweap (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

PLease discuss content at the article talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Large Paid Editing Declaration

Hi Jytdog, I received a message from User:Bbarmadillo, who seems to have made a gigantic declaration of paid editing. I wonder if you have see it. He sent me an email, for some reason. scope_creep (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hm! Looks at first glance like they are being a good citizen. Will look further and keep my fingers crossed. Odd that he emailed you. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

YGM

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello

I revised your notes on my editing on Barefoot and I'd like to ask you the following:
- Didn't you notice that all your corrections where you refer to unsourced text didn't have any connection with my text? I never add the text without citations.
- Your notes about badly sourced information have nothing to do with my citations added, they are not mine.
- Can you show me which text that I added is regarded as promotional - for me to know and not to make such mistakes in the further editing
- Why any book I added to External sources you regard redundant (is it enough to cite the website where they are in the Bibliography?)

And as to the editing of Atkins - I didn't mean any editor war beginning. I didn't reverse your editing I just eliminated the sentence where I enumerated the names of celebrities that had used his diet as you wrote it was promotional and continued editing. That's all. If I do it by mistake, then I'm sorry. I didn't mean that I didn't pay attention to your notes. Will you be so kind to show me what text in this article is regarded as promotional for me not to repeat such mistakes further on.Lyupant (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss article content on the article talk page. Please be aware that not everything is about your edits. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

"this is not good and we should perhaps consider MfDing"

See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 57#Inherently non-neutral forum used to canvas keep !votes in AFDs?. This is classic "Rescue Squad" behaviour, where the one person seriously opposing deletion responds to a weak-but-steadily-growing consensus to delete by posting to the Rescue List, and several of their regulars show up to auto-!vote "keep" with superficial "See! I found these sources that I clearly haven't read! GNG!" comments.

Sometimes they even show up and steamroll an AFD, and never make any effort to fix the article under discussion, until yoi explicitly call them out on it so they either (a) make a feeble attempt to improve the article with sub-optimal sources and OR or (b) unilaterally change the topic of the article completely, delete everything in it, and create an entirely new article in its place (which still is not ideal but meets WP:NLIST), while still claiming that they are "keeping" the article and that the article was always on their new topic.

But don't dare talk about any of this in public, or you'll be hounded for weeks for your "battleground" mentality and your being a member of "the deletionist camp".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for posting to the discussions you opened; it is very useful to know what past conversations were. An effective MfD or other community action would require a lot more homework to show the behavior, and then work to present that concisely so that other people can quickly grasp the issue. I have not done that work yet to see if this is a trend and if so, if it is serious enough to try to galvanize action around; my "if" was an authentic "if". But thanks again for making me aware of those two discussions. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to give you the full background, or even a thorough explanation of my full history with ARS (which only goes back a month). If it had been, I would have also linked you directly to Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list#RFC about proposed guideline amendment, where some of the worst harassment took place over a concentrated period, in response to my good-faith request that they at least tone down the more blatant canvassing (my proposal would have, in this case, banned Cunard from responding to the growing delete consensus by "calling in reinforcements, so to speak). It's linked in the above discussion anyway, which I assume is what you meant by "those two discussions". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I just read through all of that background, and it leaves me feeling saddened. What I am seeing is a group of editors with a battleground attitude towards AfD, as extreme inclusionists, who have figured out a way to canvass without getting caught. They constructed their project so that they can always say that they are not about canvassing, and just as you said, they are trigger happy to hound anyone who says otherwise. An MfD will get shouted down. I think that the best one can do is to open an ANI thread after each AfD where they show up and make trouble, knowing full well that the ANI thread will degenerate into a long argument that leads nowhere, and after building up enough of those to justify an ArbCom case, open such a case and be prepared to document that they just !vote without actually working to improve the pages. It's a matter of documenting each time an editor comes to an AfD after a post at their project, but does nothing to actually edit the page that was nominated for deletion. And I'm saying this on-Wiki with an expectation that they will see what I have posted here, and will take it as a challenge to actually do rescues the right way, which would make such an ArbCom case unnecessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not so hopeless about an MfD, if there is indeed a problem. The project's own guidelines say that participants are not supposed to show up and votestack but rather do the work to actually rescue - I was happily surprised to see that guidance saying the correct thing. One imagines that this became so prominently posted because participants (being human like everybody else) tend to slide into doing the easier, incorrect thing. If there is a pattern of doing the wrong thing despite their own guidance, that would be a strong reason to delete at MfD - the argument would be (subjunctive, as I haven't done the research yet) that the project leads people to disruptive behavior. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It's very doubtful an MfD would succeed but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing anyway. My recollection is that the last time the ARS folks had a bright light shined on them they backed off afterwards and weren't so blatant, at least for a while. You'd have to be scrupulously civil, non-accusing and so on at any MfD for this to work, because (like much of Wikipedia) it's basically a PR game. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Those are good points. And if nothing else, such an MfD would at least provide further justification for going to ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've been in touch with a few of the other editors who expressed similar concerns in the VPM thread, and they basically said it's essentially a spent force that now serves mainly to turn the odd "delete" consensus into "no consensus" (which I suspect will be the outcome at the YPT discussion). I suspect my accidentally stumbling across them last month and bringing it up on VPM "woke the dragon" and this is what has led to recent spurt in activity of both the project and one of its (formerly dormant) members, and I should have left well enough alone. One of the commenters at VPM (who probably should have been blocked for repeated and unapologetic copyvio years ago) "coincidentally" showed up there having never edited VPM before and having been involved in the AFD from 2013 that inspired the discussion,[1] so it seems awfully likely that someone was circulating emails about it. Basically what I'm saying is that the potential benefits of a community discussion must be weighed against the fact that getting ARS angry is probably going to be counter-productive in the short run, as well as the fact that multiple MFDs have already resulted in "no consensus" in the past because shutting down XFDs is literally the thing ARS built its reputation on. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

In re their guidance saying the right thing, I just did this: [2]. Let's see if it sticks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes lets do see. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I was quickly reverted, big surprise. It would be good if other editors would keep an eye on this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri88, thanks for mentioning that it has been up for MfD before - I just searched and found 4 past discussions. I will read them before I do anything. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Your borderline vandalism of The Great Courses

being discussed at the article TP and apparently at OP's TP. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Hey it's one thing to rightfully call out spam, and delete dubious references such as those to the Teaching Company's website. But gutting an article by rather wantonly stripping out half of the content, and removing correct and useful information that has been put there by the many Wikipedian contributors who appreciate the excellent Great Courses series -- I am one of them -- your act is borderline vandalism. The list of types of courses and teachers (many of whom have articles in Wikipedia -- they are excellent teachers generally) is valuable information for pretty much everybody. Instead of gutting an article, why not add a tag saying more sources are needed? Then, when I attempt to restore some of the deleted non-promotional content, you reverted my restoration which is edit warring. You're going to have to learn a lesson here, that there are other contributors to this encyclopedia, and they may have viewpoints that differ from yours, and you, acting unilaterally, can get you in trouble with the Wikipedia community.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:PROMO are policy. Removing policy-violating content is not vandalism. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You're going hogwild with your deletions, then edit-warring when I tried to restore valuable content. You should treat Wikipedians like me, who've been here awhile, with more deference and respect.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN you are very welcome to find high quality sources for that content that was removed and restore it if it complies with the rest of WP policies. Nobody welcomes restoration of unsourced, promotional content. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Your AN3 complaint

Regarding this report, I think it needs some kind of editor consensus at an appropriate venue. If you think that WP:PSCI is the major issue you might consider the WP:FTN. I don't see a case for an AN3 block with the data you have provided. In my opinion the case wouldn't be clear-cut even at AE. The ARBPS decision is mostly oriented to 'alternative science' where somebody is defending a set of beliefs that appear to be a system but are in conflict with normal science. Or something like the electric universe. A plain old WP:RFC is something else you might consider. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Ed! Sorry I missed it. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

COIN

Thanks for starting the discussion. I added some background that I hope won't be too distracting.

I think you want to revise is very hard to understand if there is some external interest driving it. because I believe you mean "very hard to understand unless there is...". --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, yes that is what i meant. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this coincidence...

...or did somebody pick on the dumping waste in National Forests metaphor? "It's not polite to treat Wikipedia like an endlessly renewable resource with infinite free labor" – Phoebe Ayers, quoted in The Verge Cheers ☆ Bri (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I reckon it is coincidence - I am happy to see it and want to see more of it! Thanks for letting me know about it Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Journal series

Re: this, have you thought about these as well? Best, JBL (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Penuma

We typically simple redirect brands to generics. But am easy either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

yes i know. i wanted this gone. thanks for bearing with that. medical marketing in wikipedia grrrrr. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Smarter Lunchroom Movement

Hello Jytdog, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Smarter Lunchroom Movement, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional, and at least possibly notable. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Consumer Education Foundation

Hello Jytdog, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Consumer Education Foundation, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Eastmain I am well aware of the criteria. I strongly urge you to read WP:PROMO - if you have a pattern of stripping speedy tags from blatant spam that would be a bad thing. There are a nest of people connected to this group that have done nothing but dump promotional garbage to WP. This is not even a little ambiguous. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shirley Ratcliffe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sex chromosome disorders (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I chose not to fix this. Sorry bot. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Bill Fink

Thanks for re-draftifying this. You beat me to it by a few minutes. I've deleted and salted the redirect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for handling the redirect! I feel bad for KDS4444; he has lived himself into a bad place.Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of the word “common”

A one word revisionist? Please use article’s TALK page to see why there is so much confusion over the common usage of the alternate name. Riptide360 (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss content on the relevant article's talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

request for feedback to recent post

Please respond to me current post on the talk page. It's interesting that when I"undo" an edit, it receives immediate response- but when I listen to the editing community- no one responds to my requests. Please respond to my current post. I have taken this matter to the editing community, as requested, and can not receive a response. Shushu2 (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)shushu2

Thanks, I replied at your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Animal models

Jytdog, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on adding a section on animal models to the biology of depression page. Given the amount of research into the neural circuitry of depression (albeit with potentially questionable behavioral models), I think it is significant enough to warrant discussion, but I would appreciate your opinion.Petergstrom (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

These are some of the sources I was thinking of using

Petergstrom (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Template_talk:COI#RfC_-_on_template_removal_guidance

Hi Jytdog. This is a courtesy note to let you know I have closed a Request for Comment you initiated, at Template_talk:COI#RfC_-_on_template_removal_guidance. Kind regards, Fish+Karate 11:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Defender of the Wiki

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For all your good work.[3] Bishonen \| talk 13:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:Z147

Yeah! Seconded—Get your big sword out, JYTdog! —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. but sword, yikes. There are people doing much more powerful and sweeping work on this stuff. I am more like a gardener pulling up weeds here and there. Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, you are a very important weeder. Honestly, every time I dip my toe into that stuff, I find that I just don't have the stomach for it. I'm grateful that other editors do. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thx to both of you. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

will try to do better

Thanks for the information about the automated citation feature (I'd been doing citations all by hand) and about the need not to use phrases like "it should be noted" or "pointed out". I'll go back over my past edits (of which there aren't many) and change those sorts of phrases when I find them. NightHeron (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

2nd question (unrelated)

I see your user page says you edit medical articles a lot. I've been participating on the Talk:Alternative medicine arguing that the article needs balance and NPOV, which (it seems to me) it currently lacks. If you have time, could you check out the "balance and NPOV" section of that discussion, and tell me whether you think I'm misinterpreting NPOV? My purpose in entering that discussion is not to hassle people, and in fact I strongly agree with their objective of opposing pseudoscience. Please let me know if you don't think there's an NPOV issue there.

As far as my previous message goes, I'm happy to defer to your judgment about those edits. I just wanted to assure you that they seemed sensible at the time, even though admittedly they were clumsy, and I was surprised that they caused such an angry response. NightHeron (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

With regard to what you have been writing at the Alt med article, this is just general, and not specific to that article (specific discussion belongs at the article talk page....)

As some other folks there have noted, trying to have a high-level discussion about whether a given article fails NPOV is going to lead to high level replies, which inevitably will degenerate into a forum-like discussion which is not what talk pages are for. In other words, it isn't productive and leads everybody astray. It always much better to make very specific proposals.
With regard to the lead of any article..... Per WP:LEAD, the lead should just summarize what is already in the body of the article, giving weight (space and emphasis) as the body does. Writing a lead for the most part is very mechanical -- some art can come into it, with respect to trying to write supportable summaries of sections in the body, but that is as far as "art" or style goes. In general a discussion about whether a lead is NPOV or not, that is not grounded in whether the lead accurately summarizes the body, is unproductive as well as off-base. (the right questions to ask are things like the following.. Is there anything in the lead that is only in the lead, and not summarizing content in the body? Are there major chunks of content in the body of the article that are not summarized in the lead? Does weight given to things in the lead, accurately reflect the weight given to them in the body?
With regard to the body of the article -- when I first encounter an article the first thing I do is review the sources. Do they appear to be a) high quality? and b) fairly recent? Are they well formatted? Once I have sense of the sources, I scan the body and look to see if it is well-organized and if there are big chunks of unsourced content or stretches of badly sourced content. If there are one of the first things I do is remove or condense those. Only then do I even look at the lead, and ask the questions I noted above. That is the initial review I do. What I do next depends on the quality of the existing sources. If they appear high quality and relatively recent I read them (!). Then I go and look to see if the content accurately summarizes those sources. Once all that is good, I go and look to see if there are strong and relatively recent sources out there that we are not using, and bring them, always keeping WEIGHT in mind.

It is not good to go looking for some specific kind of source to back up some specific slant. Instead, look for the best sources and and summarize what they say.

So that if you want to "work over" the alt med article (or any article), that is what you should do, in my view. It is a lot of work! Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

concerning "PROMO and outright spam"

After sending me helpful information just a few hours before, I'm surprised that you slam my latest edits with the insulting words "PROMO and outright spam". I know that you're a very experienced editor, so it was quite a shock that you would ignore Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. The reason for the link to Koblitz's blog was that the blog, according to information the author posted about her book, is devoted to "further commentary, updates on material in the book, and readers' comments." It's obviously not a commercial or promotional site, but rather a supplement to her book. It's also freely available online, which the book is not. So what's wrong with giving the link?

The reason for the added words before the footnotes after Koblitz's listed books is that otherwise I think many readers would not know that the footnote is really a note, not just a citation. I admit that it's a clumsy way to tell the reader what the footnote concerns. I just couldn't think of a better way.

As you know, I'm new at this. I'm not yet familiar with all the conventions and the style of Wikipedia. My edits were designed to be informative to the reader. That's all.

Those edits were minor ones designed to clarify things and point the reader to more information. Why would anyone characterize that as "promo" or "spam"? NightHeron (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

You are talking about this specific edit I made. Please avoid personal websites unless using them is absolutely necessary. It is pretty clear you are a fan of Koblitz; please be careful not to try to sell her to everybody else via WP. I debated removing the quotes from the reviews but was trying to be gentle in leaving them. I have not gone and myself looked to see if the reviews you chose to cite were representative of the scholarly response to her books or not. That is something I need to get to. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarification of wording of Barbara's topic ban

Sandstein has closed the User:Barbara (WVS) ANI discussion with a topic ban worded "is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from medical articles". Following discussion with Sandstein regarding the scope of that topic ban (User_talk:Sandstein#What_the_topic_ban_covers), it is felt that further wording is required. Therefore it is proposed that the wording of the topic ban is amended to read:

"By consensus of the community, Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs), also editing as Bfpage (talk · contribs), is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed, and is also banned from interacting with Flyer22 (talk · contribs) (WP:IBAN)."

As you took place in the discussion, please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_clarification_of_scope_of_topic_ban to give your views. SilkTork (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

User:SuperSucker

Per this, I will eventually get around to looking at all of the suicide articles he's edited and will ask for semi-protection on all of them since his IP is not always the same and he will continue editing the way he's been editing. He is also likely to create a new account, but it will be easy to identify. Thanks for your help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

And thank you, Courcelles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, their IP is quite dynamic. Please let me know if they show up again. And also let me know which pages you think I need to protect. Courcelles (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

List of works

Hi, I saw you were recently active at WP:CSC (talk) and thought I'd just ask you instead of posting there. Is there any kind of standard for lists of works by an author, in that author's biography? I'm looking at an article with ~two dozen books and some pretty heavy history of promotion. I don't see any book reviews, so possibly none of them is notable. ISBN 0-684-86215-8 is an example. Thx. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

jyt

don't allow anyone to bully you out of here[4]your a very good editor... Desiderata--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just been busy in the RW. :) Jytdog (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

basement

Are you hiding in my basement? HA. Someone has started an SPI about you and I. I believe it's smokescreen.104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Jytdog, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Issues at Ketonic diet

I'd be grateful for your input to the discussion at Talk:Ketogenic diet#Another revert. The specific topic is the first paragraph of Ketogenic diet#Other applications and how it relates to WP:MEDRS. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I saw it already; have been following the discussion and thinking. Your post is kind of canvassy and was not a good idea. Jytdog (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Upon reflection ...

I agree with what you said on my talk page, that my close was too terse. I should have explained myself more fully. I apologize for that. Sigh … and if I could do things over I would handle our discussion on my talk page differently as well. I’m sorry for that too. You said at AN that you wish to disengage, I respect that, so don’t feel like you need to respond to this. Regards, Paul August ☎ 15:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! I appreciate you taking the time and thought and I bear no ill will toward you and hope that you have none toward me. I really just wanted to disengage from that specific interaction. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Life's not fair

You ended up doing almost all the work after all. [5] Hardly a just reward, but I wanted to say thank you. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Life in community! :) Thanks for your note. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Re-worded

I'm sorry If I worded my response poorly. I've reworded it. If you could take a look, I'd appreciate it. Spintendo 19:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted your "rewording". Please WP:REDACT. I will respond there after you do; there is no need to post here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Redacted per your request.

When I said invalidated, I meant you invalidated the use of the journals, not that you were invalidating my COI edit review. I apologize for this misunderstanding, and I have added the redacted version to my page at your request. Spintendo 19:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Alexander Technique page

Hello Jytdog,

If you could explain your reasoning on reverting the Alexander Tech page, I would be ever so grateful. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tictocdocs (talk • contribs) 19:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Happy to discuss content at the article talk page - if ask there i will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

dispute

I filed a dispute for unfair bad faith COI accusations and leaving behind a mostly deleted and uninformative page Science contributor101 (talk)

Thanks for letting me know. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Bcash alt name

Hello Jytdog,

Could you please take a look at my revised Bitcoin Cash article altname RfC text to see if it is neutral and brief? Please feel free to edit my sandbox.

User:Jtbobwaysf/sandbox#Revised_RfC_on_altname_Bcash

Thank you Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Jtbobwaysf sorry for the delay. That is an appropriate RfC yes! Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

IrishCentral

I think AfD is a much better route. My guess is that it will pass, but my involvement was to clear out the promotion and copyvio and add a source, although not one sufficient to show notability. I've also advised the person with the same name as the director what to do. Doug Weller talk 20:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I saw, and I agree. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Some obvious paid editors, but Thurles2 might be just a fan who is probably too incompetent to be editing anyway, he wrecked the article and the AfD. Doug Weller talk 06:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nina Teicholz has been accepted

Nina Teicholz, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Dial911 (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the review User:Dial911. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries mate! Do you have New Page Reviewer flag? Dial911 (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I do. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

What's the benefit of an experienced editor using AfC? Natureium (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of the article. Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

BNY Mellon - First Company Listed

Hi! I have responded to your concerns on the talk page for your input on the Bank of New York Mellon and whether it was the first company listed (also for reverting 1 change, yes 1! edit and adding a cite does not make an edit war - try to offer to discuss this amicably before claiming straight away there is an edit war if this happens in the future).Hkong22 (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Sodium Oxybate COI edit request

Hello! There is a newer COI edit request concerning Sodium Oxybate and another pharmaceutical precursor of that same drug in the request queue. Since it was medical related I wanted to get your input before attempting to address it. It looks like they want press release information or information from the drug's package insert placed in the article. What is wikipedia's stance on letting this info be reproduced in the article? Thank you for any help you can provide! Spintendo 17:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The label , yes, but it should be sourced to the FDA's website not the company. generally no to press releases. I will have a look at the actual requests tonight. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Spintendo thanks for bringing the request at sodium oxybate to me. That page was already really bad and needed a complete work-over, and the COI requests were hard on their own, much less on top of that mess. Solriamfetol was kind of messy too. Jytdog (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Tharbis

You may be interested in this one, I didn't know we had it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

oh my! I am. Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't suppose we can use this [6] as leadimage? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh man. :) Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

BNY Mellon

Hi, Following your response on the talk page I have requested a third opinion to help look into this. Hopefully, you will be happy to amicably engage. Hkong22 (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; you did not however request WP:3O, you filed at WP:DRN. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:MEDDATE

Hello Jytdog,

I read WP:MEDDATE and see no issues with what I've posted. New research is not being represented on this Glioblastoma page (at least not under non-risks). There is certainly some perceivable risk given that long-term studies have not concluded and that recent studies are finding inconclusive evidence (for and against). I'm just asking that the section entitled Non-Risks be edited to remove Cell Phones and Cell Phones should be moved to unclear risks.

Under this section is another sentence that briefly mentions unclear risks. Please consider moving it here.

While this mindset of cell phones being perfectly harmless may have been true several years ago, none of the current studies are claiming this any longer. Please read the Talk page for Glioblastoma for more information.

I'll leave you with one final thought... Consider this logic; smoking a cigarette won't give you cancer. Smoking cigarettes for 5 to 10 years might not give you cancer. Smoking cigarettes for 20,30,or more years will likely give you cancer. So, before we knew for certain that long term smoking habits lead to cancer, would it have been a good idea to announce that cigarettes are a "non-risk", simply because the independent, long-term studies hadn't concluded? That would have been very presumptuous indeed.

Thank you for your time,

--Wbeaton (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss content at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, I have. Can you please respond? You're the one rejecting my edit. --Wbeaton (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. I replied there and made a few edits. Please reply there. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeshua

Do you have any comments on Yeshua being put in a Bracket as Colliric suggested?ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry.com

Hey there. Thanks for your great work on 23&Me. I was wondering if you may look at Ancestry.com as that page has a similar problem with using almost entirely primary sources. I have removed a ton of them but there are still many more and I just got really tired of working on that on both articles. R9tgokunks ✡ 00:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure i will look at it. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Venom in Medicine

And others- appreciation of good edits. Very good work.PRehse (talk)

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The Pillars of BLP articles

Just notifying you manually of a newer discussion at Talk:Joshua Waitzkin That discussion, which is discussed in detail at the article's talk page, involves an issue which comes up again and again, and I wasn't entirely sure of how they are handled. (I'm asking here because it's a question which is broader in nature than just the one topic.) That question is how to proceed when the subject of an article, notable for one particular instance of something, then wishes to expand their article with other items that they are interested in, but are not necessarily notable for. I understand the pillars of blp article creation - (NPOV, NOR, V) - but the guidance is vague with regards to how information is handled after article creation. Do those fundamental pillars extend beyond the creation point, to include interests of the subject which came after the initial notability? (Again, the particular details of the Josh Waitzkin request are at that article's talk page, per your request at the top of your talk page to leave discussions there.) You may answer the question I am asking here there, if you prefer. Thank you for any help you can offer, I appreciate it. Spintendo 17:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

That is a great question and one that is endlessly debated. (so no easy answers, I am sorry to say).

Some people pretty much look only at WP:V, and not at any other policies, and generally say "If is it in a reliable source, include it!"

Others look at one or more other policies as well, as well as looking harder at V

One can look harder at the source, and ask if it independent or the subject and if it is WP:PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY. (generally WP articles should be built from independent secondary sources, and if one is going to use a source that is not independent or secondary, there should be some good reason for that)

Bringing in WP:NPOV, one can ask "Is including it WP:DUE or should we leave it out as being WP:UNDUE? " (WP:RECENTISM is important to keep in mind as well, and something that we as an editing community generally suck at avoiding - "current events" tend to get enormously UNDUE weight)

Bringing in WP:NOT, one can ask broadly if the content/sourcing aims at WP's mission of providing readers with accepted knowledge, or if it not, but is instead just WP:TRIVIA or WP:GOSSIP or news or fails in some other regard. One can also ask if this is really just WP:PROMO.

Finally one should always think about BLP which calls us to apply all the policies rigorously and in addition ask if this is really aimed at providing accepted knowledge about the person; lots of false flags get flown under BLP (BLP is not a reason to exclude negative information but it is a reason to ensure that negative information is very well sourced and summarizes the source accurately; BLP is not a reason to do whatever the subject wants).

Like I said, it is a great question. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok so to recap, it sounds like the different layers which are applied at an article's creation all come back to play their own individual parts in allowing, or disallowing, items during an article's life after creation, and that knowing which ones to use, and when, is a process informed by experience. I hope I got that right...

Thank you again for your help, I appreciate it! Spintendo 09:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh they definitely come into play after the article is created. Conflicts/controversy over what to include and what not to include happen every day. It is especially acute in articles about celebrities and people in politics where fans/haters often try to track all kinds of ... very detailed, day-to-day to stuff. Jytdog (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Signpost - NCORP report

Until we figure out exactly where this will go, could you start a userspace draft following the WP:Signpost/Quick Start guide? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Bri. Not sure I did that right. It seemed opinion-y so I made it an opinion since I had to choose. I am fine with making it more newsy. It is now at Wikipedia:Signpost/Signpost_Opinion2. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You know, I'm not supposed to be providing editorial content this time but I think you could push the op-ed on this harder. I should be able to read the first paragraph and see where you stand on the outcome. Good, bad, or neutral? I don't really get a sense of where you stand from the text right now, or feel like a lot of our readers who aren't super involved in the topic would have a reason to feel excited. What do you think about moving this sentence to the front and expanding it a bit?

That mission [open collaboration] remains as ludicrous as it ever was, yet the editing community has been surprisingly successful at realizing it.

I think you have a good sense of these conflicting tensions and they are inherently dramatic, yet somehow the drama/tension/Sturm und Drang or whatever journalistic buzzword is appropriate, is buried in the piece. In other words, it doesn't have to be dry and wonky if you want to make the column more full of Jytdog flavor. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hm. OK then. I will play with it some more today. Thanks for your time! Jytdog (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

If you want to include an image, search "tire dump" on Commons might be inspiring. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow. I envision long-needed mass AFDs for Category:Autism-related organizations in the United States. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

There is so much work to do, always. :) Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Signpost - next issue

I think your op-ed Signpost - NCORP report needs to be included. There is already a very brief mention of the new policy in News and Notes. However, we have a deadline in 48 hours for the next issue. After that, accepted submissions will be copy edited, and placed in their order of appearance. Please note that Copy Editing in the strictest sense, may alter some of the prose of articles, but not the content or the message it imparts. Please let us know if you can complete by the deadline, or if you prefer it to be deferred to the next issue at the end of May. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Kudpung. i have worked it over and am happy with it. not sure what i am supposed to do now... Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine. Leave the rest to me and Bri - we'll sort it out. In the coming weeks we're going to try and find a way of making it less complicated for users to submit articles. Even I found it a challenge!Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to say sorry for the very generous editing I did on your Signpost submission. We're under 24 hours away from deadline, and I wasn't quite sure whether you'd be online before then - otherwise I would have talked to you before changing so much. The error with ACTRIAL adoption is also obviously my fault, thanks for catching that! --Zarasophos (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your help!! It was generous. I hope my subsequent edits were OK. This is very different from editing in mainspace; this has my username on it so I pushed back on some things more than i usually would. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, just to make sure I meant "generous" as in "a lot" and not "generous" as in "I'm so great". That came out a little weird. And yeah, your article is pretty good, I really liked the illustrations and how you managed to make the drafting of a guideline interesting! As you might know, we're currently facing a very severe manpower shortage at the Signpost - would you maybe consider signing up for the next issue as well? --Zarasophos (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I meant it as in "kind and helpful" :) Hey if you understand how Wikilinks in the signpost work, could you please add a WL to Kudpung's piece where it says "as discussed elsewhere in this issue".? that would be great. Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

thanks for your kind words on the piece. sure i will think about it. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I actually did that already, just put it in the wrong spot :D --Zarasophos (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Brain Overclaim Syndrome

Hi Jytdog. I don't know if you've seen this article's entry at FT/N, but it's a hoax by a WikiEd student -- Morse explicitly coined the phrase as a joke to describe one side of a debate. Seems like a pretty clear candidate for AFD to me, but I figured it would be best to run it by a more experienced editor, especially because of the WikiEd angle. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I redirected to Neurolaw#Cautions_and_concerns and untwisted it. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Signpost

Hi! Looks good to me, thank you for writing it. I do appreciate the pun in the knight pic caption :)

I am curious how the criteria is doing "in the trenches"... Renata (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Glad you are happy with it. I am curious too! Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Byline info

Could you write a bit for your Signpost byline per this guideline? "Suggestion: one to three sentences, that briefly introduces the author and indicates why his or her opinion about the topic might interest the reader". Thanks and looking forward to seeing your column in "print". ☆ Bri (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your shepherding, Bri. do you mean like this? Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

An FYI

I see that you have had some earlier involvement in a topic which I today raised at User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 18#A heads-up. Narky Blert (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2017 Cure Award

In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the message and the work in putting it out! :) Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)