User talk:Jytdog/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Final warning for edit warring

Stop or I will request you be blocked. It's been revealed you have been edit warring this article for months and attempting to out hapless new users. You still stop or be stopped. Please see WP:ANI. 21:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainYuge (talk • contribs)

3RR for edit-warring at RepRap project. The rules apply to you too, and you're awful close to them. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that you agreed with Snow Rise's thoughtful analysis at ANI, because what he said really hits the nail on the head (as you've heard me say ad nauseum before). (But other than that, I think the multiple threads about you there today have been some of the most ridiculously nonsensical stuff I've seen in some time. So you have my genuine sympathy there.) --Tryptofish (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

not interested in feeding drama. yes; too harsh sometimes. Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Were you aware of this article in which you are prominently featured? It seems that your actions have angered some in the 3D printing community. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

yes, it was added to the headers of the RepRap article. If you read it carefully, it is pretty fair, especially for someone who doesn't seem to understand how WP works, and they are not calling for some kind of war - the italicized note at the bottom of the page is very reasonable. Everybody (with the exception of CaptianYuge) from the RepRap community who has come to the Talk page has been very civilized; they do have a sense that something was wrong (as did the author of that article). I am hopeful that I can work with these folks (and of course anybody from within the WP community already) to make this a really good Wikipedia article on an important player in 3D printing. Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz, for drawing attention to that article. Jytdog, although I too noticed ways in which the author did not understand fully how WP works, I think that they were a lot more clueful than the typical critic. I hope that you will take very seriously the things that they criticized about the tone of some of your posts. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

"Everybody (with the exception of CaptianYuge) from the RepRap community"

It's time you dropped these attacks. You're way into specific one-target harassment. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Trypto, dead horse. Andy, what do you mean by "it's time you dropped these attacks". You seem to be making a general statement, and this is what I had asked you about on your Talk page. Please say more. CaptianYuge was extremely aggressive and unwilling to focus simply on content and sources. That is not an attack, but a description of their behavior, as was generally noted at ANI. I would have been happy to work through the bits of content and sourcing, bit by bit with them. I would have. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Instead of saying "dead horse", I hope that you will give it some sober thought. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Captain Yuge got to the article before I did. Don't assume that I'm any happier your edits than he was, just busier. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Trypto, I am aware of my issues, and I have acknowledged them consistently. I acknowledged them already when you noted them above in this very thread, and at the ANI in my first comment there. so yes, for this instance, dead horse. really, i get it. I still screw up sometimes, but I get it. Andy, I would hope that if you go to work on the article, you would be willing to talk about content and sources, calmly and bit by bit, like we do here in Wikipedia. I went over CaptainYugas edits sentence by sentence and noted what I was doing in each edit note. I did not delete what he did wholesale. I understand that people may disagree with any one of those edits and I would be happy to discuss any one of them. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

" if you go to work on the article" Why the hell would I want to do that? Would you raise another SPI over me? Claim that I have some COI with RepRap? Or just repeatedly revert anything I changed? You have made editing at this article unworkable for any other GF editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

No I wouldn't raise an SPI over you. You are Andy Dingley, and are known around here. CaptainYuge came out of no where, and if you are not aware, there was a really vicious SOCK that I had helped get blocked, literally the day before CaptainYuge showed up. Much of the drama caused by that editor unfolded at an ANI higher up on the page (now archived here). Two other editors at the ANI thread CaptainYuge started, who had been involved in that, also noted that they would not be surprised if CaptainYuge turned out to be yet another SOCK of that same user. Maybe you were not aware of that context. But really, if you come and work on content and sourcing based on policies and guidelines, we can improve the article. Of course we can. Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Like that never happens? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Andy_Dingley

Yes, you had a sock problem. It's OK to raise an SPI on a reasonable suspicion of another new editor. But when a CU then says drop it, it's time to drop it. They're an innocent editor, until proven otherwise, and we should grant them that privilege. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I did drop it. I only mentioned the SOCK thing here because you did. But their behavior was terribly aggressive, and they wouldn't discuss content and sourcing bit by bit. Again that was the upshot of the ANI. I would have been happy to work with them, had they calmed down and tried to actually work together on specific bits. That is what it takes to work productively. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Kiberd, Roisin (March 23, 2016). "The Brutal Edit War Over a 3D Printer's Wikipedia Page". Vice. Retrieved 23 March 2016.

I presume you know about this, because it seems that this media house interviewed you. Thanks for presenting a good face for Wikipedia. I continue to see you stay mostly on point in your communication with promotional interests. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I am very, very disappointed with the headline and opening of the article, but if you hold your breath and keep reading it becomes reasonable. But that is the last time I talk to a journalist about editing Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I read it, and I think that you presented yourself and explained how WP really works impressively well. I'm sure you must be feeling like you've been going through a shredder by now, but I think you are entitled to know how much you ended up, by the end of the article, sounding like a very reasonable person. You also set the record straight about why WP does things the way it does. In one fish's opinion, you did a very nice service for the project in the way that you represented it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Trypto. The journalist did do a nice job distilling what I said and I appreciate that. I am glad that you and Bluerasberry felt I did well by the project - that's important to me. I just feel a bit burned by the "brutal" and "vicious" rhetoric. Wringer, not so much. I walked away because I don't want to deal with the drama and I don't feel like I can do a lot with that article any way as there are few high quality sources about it. On top of that, as you've advised, I can do without high profile drama for a while. :) Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Google maps demolition story

You should check out Goggle Maps' response to the query "7601 Cousteau Drive, Rowlett, TX, United States" to judge whether the story is relevant. 84.188.254.35 (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

People do stupid things all the time. If a wrecking crew demolished a house because they relied on google maps, they are idiots. That is not some big flaw with Google Maps, which has no claim to perfection. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It was of course definitely not bright to rely on Google maps on this occasion. However, I would have thought there are minimal standards for map makers, or are there none in the US? 84.188.254.35 (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

this is an encyclopedia not a gossip rag. If you want to generate some encyclopedic content about the accuracy of google maps over time and space, that would be amazing. This bit of trivia is not encyclopedic. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Good suggestion. If I come across some research on that, I'll look into that. 84.188.254.35 (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

References

how do I cite math? there is no need to be rude. If you care about accuracy of information then you would care about when you have been led to believe false information by the accepted sources. Mathematics proves these sources incorrect based off the given data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crlinformative (talk • contribs) 03:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It is easy to cite math. You find it published in WP:MEDRS source and then cite that source. You cannot do your own math in WP - you cannot look up how big a human oocyte is and how big an ovary is and how many eggs a woman produces in her life and do your own math. You cannot do that in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jytdog. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol.
Message added 06:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

Made some changes per your remarks. Please drop by and comment. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability of The Chardon Polka Band

When you noticed The Chardon Polka Band was tagged for notability, you noted "seems to me (jytdog) marginally OK and cleaned it up a bit". Thanks for contributing. I cleaned up the article and started a discussion of Notability on its talk page. Please contribute to discussion and/or confirm or remove notability tag, as I may or may not be considered impartial. Lefton4ya (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Lefton4ya why would you not be impartial? Do you have some connection with the band? Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yea, I am from the same area they are from and and am kinda friends with the band. I am not paid by them or asked to edit by them, but just trying to clean up their wiki page and noticed the notability tag . In trying to be a good denizen of WP but also help the band I like, I added references and cleaned up the article and also removed notability tag, but when it was added back I didn't want to start an edit war and felt someone more impartial should decide. But check out the talk page for discussion points. Lefton4ya (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that! Jytdog (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

artist Renee Radell draft

Hello Jytdog. I am not sure where to post this for your convenience, so please pardon me if I should use my own talk page. I modified the draft Renee Radell article per your suggestions, taking out any flattering comments and citing all statements of fact. Might I ask when such a piece warrants submission? Both you and DGG have said that notability should probably not be a problem. My COI as a relative of Renee would be the reason I should not submit this directly? Thank you kindly for any suggestions about next steps OtterNYC (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy

Commenting here rather than the messy project talk page. Would you have any problem with a 'seal' that identified a particular version of the article as having gone through some formal process? That would address your objection about the article immediately ceasing to be 'accurate' as soon as a new edit was made. I discussed this with Anthonyhcole a while ago. There is a desperate need for some kind of process that either alerts readers to particularly bad articles, or encourages them in the direction of slightly better ones. Peter Damian (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah just seen this. Now I understand. But that doesn't rule out some kind of project aimed at improving accuracy, right? Peter Damian (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't rule out an effort to improve accuracy. There is just a bunch of things wrong (in my view) with this specific initiative. I would be OK with something like you mention above, in theory. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. What was the user with Atsme? Was it alternative medicine related? I followed some of your links but it was a massive wall of text. Peter Damian (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I would rather not rehearse the whole thing. I have no desire to tear anybody down. Jytdog (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Tear me down? I think it would be better if you just told the truth, Jytdog. I will not say another word to you, but if you don't stop this unfounded character assassination using falsities at Griffin, we will be going back to ArbCom. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I just said that I have no desire to tear you or anybody down Atsme. I did not respond to Peter's question - I don't talk about other editors on side pages like this.

I have written nothing false at Project Accuracy (!), and in my view very few people will disagree with how I have characterized your editing history when it comes to health topics.

I try to stay away from you, because you and I have bad blood. I've made mistakes with regard to you, for which I have apologized to you, and you have not accepted; you have never shown any inkling of awareness of the bad things you have done to me, nor ever apologized to me. I only commented at Project Accuracy because with the mailing list notice, it is now very public (and yes I know that you didn't post that, nor were you very happy about it).

If you want to get all drama-boardish knock yourself out, but you have no leg here. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

I didn't mean to start a post war, just new to wikipedia and wasn't sure what was going on. sorry Madelinerobin (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Madelinerobin

It's OK -see Talk:Autism_spectrum#content_added_today. What you added was pretty good - it just needs some fixing before it goes live. You also accidentally deleted the infobox when you added that.  :) Jytdog (talk) 06:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Poisoning articles

Thanks incredibly much for cleaning up those articles. I am not an expert - I could merely see that the sources in no way supported the references, which you confirmed. It would help to understand the seriousness of the errors in the Chlorine and NO2 poisoning articles. Did this create the risk that anyone unsuspectedly using those articles might treat a case of poisoning in quite the wrong way? Peter Damian (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Per the medical disclaimer i hope nobody ever treats a patient based on what they read in the content of WP. There are foolish people out there, even doctors, and the content was very wrong. I work my butt off to make the content I work on very reliable as I want to point people in the right direction. But I will never accept an argument that some editor is in any way liable for the medical malpractice of some doctor because that editor added bad content to Wikipedia and some doctor acted on it. Not ever. That is a toxic argument. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you have answered my question. I am not suggesting anyone would be liable, merely asking whether this created the risk that anyone unsuspectedly using those articles might treat a case of poisoning in quite the wrong way. Clearly so, and we really have to ask whether the WMF should be doing more to protect the public against this kind of thing. Re the medical disclaimer, I believe it has been a contentious issue for some time that this warning is not prominently displayed on every relevant page. There are many questions here. How was this editor allowed back, given his previous history of creating false references? Why does the WMF, and why do many of the community, persist in this myth that anyone can edit Wikipedia without risk, and why does the WMF encourage this? How was it possible that the article was checked for references by a number of other editors? When I ask WMF about this, I get some story about how the WP process of Darwinian selection is better than Britannica, or Nupedia or some other such nonsense. This needs to be taken further. Peter Damian (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Preliminary research suggests that physicians and medical students commonly admit to using Wikipedia as a reference. Ha ha. Peter Damian (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This is incredible. So 'Wikicology' copied and pasted some stuff in the Beryllium article to the NO2 poisoning article. But the Berylliosis article was garbage too. So completely ignorant people are copying garbage to make up further garbage??? Peter Damian (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The beryllium article was pretty bad, yes. Not as bad, but pretty bad and terrible in spots. Good in spots too.

The admin's decision to unblock Wikicology after the socking and COI editing was interesting and debatable, and one very distinct ball of wax. There is an entirely separate ball of wax about whether an individual is competent, subject matter wise, to edit a given topic. There is yet another separate ball of wax as to whether an individual is incompetent in terms of basic scholarly ethics and methods to create content in Wikipedia. Everybody (including me) makes mistakes when reading a source and summarizing it, or even in missing a source. That happens. But Wikicology's editing on those two articles was way outside the pale in terms of basic scholarly ethics/methods as well as subject matter knowledge. Really bad and not explainable via mistakes. Which is why I asked for a TBAN on health for him.

The much broader issue of the "accuracy" of Wikipedia content is yet another ball of wax. Unless the very nature of this place is fundamentally changed to provide validation of editors (which I don't see the community as ever being open to) the only thing that makes any given bit of content in Wikipedia have high quality (very well sourced, accurately summarizing the sources, and neutral) is the quality of the editor who last looked at it and the quality of their review of it. (the latter is essential, as that individual may have made a mistake on some level). I understand the impulse behind Atsme's project, to set up a board of "accuracy reviewers" (i think "content quality" would be a better thing to aim for than "accuracy", as it takes into account those three things - quality of sourcing, accuracy in summarizing, and neutrality) but there are a lot of problems with it, that i see as very difficult to overcome, as i and others have mentioned there. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree. What do you see as the 'lot of problems'? I can see a few myself. Peter Damian (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Jytdog. Thanks for your comment and your willingness to help cleaning those mess. I appreciate you. I admit that I committed some blunders on the "Nitrogen dioxide poisoning" and chlorine gas poisoning" but I neither authored nor edit Beryllium poisoning. As you rightfully pointed out, we all make mistakes and its always a good idea to learn from them. Surely, I will learn from this mistakes and that will make me a better editor. I decided not to respond to Peter again not because I'm rude but because I want to remain calm as possible as I can which I think its the right thing to do. Just as I pointed out on the ANI thread , and as other editors have pointed out, I'm not under any obligation to declare my identity on Wikipedia or to any editor. I'm not a WMF staff neither I'm I an Oversight or Checkuser. I'm a volunteer like anyone around. If I call myself a farmer for example or a philosopher on my userpage, it doesn't mean its true or false. I mean, it could be true or false and only reliable sources outside Wikipedia can validate my claims. I may choose to call myself a "Vampire" or "Goat" on Wikpedia or other Wikimedia project. I wonder why an editor will call me a liar and several other names on this basis if they found it outside Wikipedia that I'm neither " a Vampire" nor a "Goat". This is clearly against the ethics of collaboration. If Peter or any editor feels some unverified information/claims on my userpage is likely to mislead other people or editors, there are polite ways of requesting a confirmation or changes to the claims. I'm not a rigid person, I will make the changes or provide confirmation. I don't mind sending them a private email with confirmation. If I wish to declare my true identity to WMF, there are processes for doing that. Just as you have pointed out, no one is perfect here on Wikipedia and everyone were once new here as a Wikipedian. I had a really tough time with understanding Wikipedia as an editor from Africa, hence the reasons for the socks in those earliest days (newbie days). I want us to realize that very Wikipedians have two lives, his personal life and his life as a Wikipedian. I won't insult Peter or any editor that strongly criticize me and I want to believe they are doing that in good faith with the aim of improving the encyclopedia and I will learn from their constructive criticisms. Thanks for the good work and I'm proud to know you. Hope I can always ask you for help? I'm so grateful. Cheers. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course I want to fix Wikipedia articles that are messed up. I do not care about the issues with your unblocking related to your socking and violations of COI; I understand all that is in the past now. Please do not talk any more about that here on my Talk page. If you do, I will just delete your whole post. So please don't. I do care very much about the quality of your editing about health. If you do not wish to be topic banned from the topic of health, I suggest you post something at the ANI thread explaining why you should not be. There is no point in you posting that here. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI#More WP:BATTLEGROUND from Jytdog at Berylliosis

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on Omeprazole. I was apparently asleep at the wheel and didn't notice it was the lead I was removing the info from. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 08:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• In case you missed my comment, please see "23:19, 30 March 2016" above. There is no need to reply, but as there was some other activity on this page around that time, you might not have noticed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixing pings

Re diff, it is not possible to "fix" a ping. Thinking about what would happen when editors correct typos or make other adjustments to their comments shows the reason for that. A notification will only occur when adding new content with a new signature. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

right, so if I change the formatting of a ping, delete my signature, and then sign again, it pings. here I will show you. Johnuniq (broken ping formatting) Jytdog (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

were you pinged? Jytdog (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

No! Imagine this is on another talk page and I pinged you in this comment. Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Then I notice a typo which means the ping did not work, so I would write a new comment something like: [new ping goes here] sending notification to fix earlier mistake. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

hm. i need to set up a play account to figure this out. Thanks!! Jytdog (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I noticed the diff at AfD EGS (I'm watching it to remind myself to vote later): diff. That won't work! If you comment with a ping, then notice that it was broken, you have two choices. First, add a new comment (do not edit anything, add a new line with a new message and a new signature); the new message would have a short note something like "re-ping to fix mistake". Second, in one edit, delete all of the erroneous comment and save the page, then add a new comment with the fixed text. Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

thanks! and for the reminder below. Jytdog (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		It takes a real son of a gun to get me to admit when I'm wrong about the wording of one of our core policies, especially WP:EP which I guard like a hawk, but somehow you've (mostly) won me over. It's a genuine pleasure and delight to meet another editor who as strongly believes in WP:5P as I do. -- Kendrick7talk 02:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

you are very gracious. thanks. i do need to work on my civility, but i believe in it! Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Civility is overrated. Just keep up the good work. :) -- Kendrick7^talk 04:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Useful template

Useful template, if you weren't aware:

Template:No more links.

Hope that's helpful in the future,

— Cirt (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You're most welcome, — Cirt (talk) 04:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Richard R. Fisher

Nice work on this article. Thanks. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for reviewing it. Jytdog (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Auditory system

Hi Jytdog - re your recent edit and comment - I thought the overview was supposed to summarise the page - I at first added to Trapezoid body linking decussate so in my mind removing necessity for detailed info in overview and trimming section. But if I was wrong - so be it.--Iztwoz (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

this is the diff I reverted, where you changed a more wordy but easier to understand sentence "The trapezoid body is where most of the cochlear nucleus (CN) fibers decussate (cross left to right and vice versa); this cross aids in sound localization" to the more elegant and condensed, but impenetrably jargony: "Decussation in the trapezoid body aids in sound localisation". Elegant scientific writing but bad for our general audience. Jytdog (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The general audience has (assumedly) read the preceding sections first and can also go back to those sections for further clarification. ?--Iztwoz (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You mean this completely unreadable paragraph? "The superior olivary complex (SOC), in pons, is the first convergence of the left and right cochlear pulses. SOC has 14 described nuclei; their abbreviation are used here (see Superior olivary complex for their full names). MSO determines the angle the sound came from by measuring time differences in left and right info. LSO normalizes sound levels between the ears; it uses the sound intensities to help determine sound angle. LSO innervates the IHC. VNTB innervate OHC. MNTB inhibit LSO via glycine. LNTB are glycine-immune, used for fast signalling. DPO are high-frequency and tonotopical. DLPO are low-frequency and tonotopical. VLPO have the same function as DPO, but act in a different area. PVO, CPO, RPO, VMPO, ALPO and SPON (inhibited by glycine) are various signalling and inhibiting nuclei."? Jytdog (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I realize that another editor dumped a bunch of way, way too dense content and you are trying to clean it up and i appreciate the effort. please just try to write simply as much as you can. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

No I did not mean that - I meant the earlier headed sections like Trapezoid body....and you've just drawn attention to the above that I think I'll take to talk page - imo this whole section really shouldn't have lived. How it is of any use to anyone??

Yes a well-intentioned newbie neurologist dumped a well-intentioned-but-way=too-technical bunch of stuff into the article - you can see the big addition in the history, and it wasn't great before that. i have been wanting to FIXIT but haven't gotten there. am happy you are working on it! Needs lots of cleanup yes. Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Chinese Mail-order brides

China is a source country of Mail-order brides you can find a lot of Websites in the Internet so it is a fact but its very difficult to find a reliable source so please could you insert the Citation needed-Symbol?--141.19.228.15 (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Are there lots of sources, or not? Confusing. In any case, it doesn't matter. You cannot add unsourced content to Wikipedia like this. Please read WP:VERIFY and follow it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Piggate and Magical Negro

Actually, when I said "My god, hasn't the Ed Miliband bacon sandwich article been deleted yet?" at AfD, I was thinking of the Piggate article, I was mixing them up (pork and politicians in both, you know). Just thought I'd mention it. Then I thought I'd go prod Piggate, but it has already been AfD'd and kept with something like fifty keep votes. I wonder what message board they came from. But since it's the encyclopedia any canvassed idiot can edit, not much can be done about it. I'm thinking maybe I need a break from all the silliness.

However, incidentally, you know the article Barack the Magic Negro that you mentioned (and which is at least a song, not just a fucking "meme")? It led me to the very interesting article Magical Negro. Educational! There's some good stuff here! Bishonen | talk 17:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC).

:) yes the magical negro thing itself is about how racist white america is. The Limbaugh thing is so, so twisted on itself. blech. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

About all of that, wow, just wow! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah :) this is all started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian if you want to drop in there. Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow-squared, and I think I'll pass. (So it didn't start with when Marco Rubio said it in a 2016 debate?) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Revised. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

nope. i don't even know what the bad meme there is. don't want to! ack, articles outside medicine/science in Wikipedia just ack. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

now i see. no it has loooooong and colorful history. hey while i have you what is a "UPE" over at harassment? Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

"Undisclosed paid editing". I initially didn't know what it was, either, but I saw jbh use it, and eventually figured out that it was what he meant. I'll make it clearer in the final version, of course. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

ahhh. yes. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a serious comment. I really should have logged out already, and I'm probably getting giddy. Didn't someone call you a vulgarian recently, or was that someone else? (No insinuation about anyone's fingers, of course!) This talk section sounds like it should have a mash-up: something like Pontius Piggate and the Short-Fingered Magical Negro on the Island of Vulgaria. Sounds like something Bishzilla would host. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

yes this is what i thought was even more funny about this article. must have been on the mind of that person! At least they left out the "short-fingered" part. :) Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank-you so much for your kind response

Mim.cis (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Frivolous COI claim

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NeatGrey (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please do not use the phrase "going forward". It's a terrible cliche. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

? Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that Drmies has a bit of a sense of humor. It's not really a warning, just a response to your own self-revert. By the way, Drmies, I enjoyed your recent pole dance. The leopard print thong was a nice touch, but maybe the dayglo pasties were a bit much. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Look Dog, Fish, when an ArbCom member says "please do not use the phrase 'going forward'" y'all better not be using the phrase going forward. Tryptofish, what a coincidence: one of my students today said I should wear a short skirt to class so the party would come to me. Apparently they had been discussing this before I came in. I don't know if I should feel flattered or violated--but I tell you what, I got a nice pair of legs and I'm glad you noticed. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Going forward, please do not call me a dogfish. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Wasn't it a brand of beer too? That had a reality show, and they made only two episodes? Drmies (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• I've handed out so many blocks tonight I can't see straight anymore. At least I'll get a big fat check from the WMF next week. Have a good night y'all--see you at the next ArbCom hearing. And I'm ordering some Pastease Strapless Bikini Bottoms. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if American Politics is in your interests but..

..please take a look here. The timings especially are interesting. FP1 takes on client, clients articles subsequently start getting negative information removed and positive info added. Likewise FP1's client's opposition get the reverse treatment... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Contact?

Is there a way I can contact you to discuss my COI privately and in confidence? 59.38.139.24 (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

um, OK. it is jytdog @ gmail Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

3RR

Please be mindful of WP:3RR. Please use the article talk to sort it out rather than reverting each other. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I am aware that I am pushing that. I have cleaned up BigBaby's spelling and grammar errors countless times. Please see User_talk:Bigbaby23#Basic_editing_stuff. This user continues to edit aggressively on an FA. It is hard enough to have content disputes without having to clean up after them. Very, frustrating. They have restored the spelling and grammatical errors now three times with edit note "fixed" without fixing them. Just argh. Jytdog (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You know what, I filed a 3RR that there has been no action on. The community is unwilling to support this FA against this incompetent, aggressive editing. I am just going to unwatch it. Not worth the aggravation to me. Jytdog (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's look for solutions here. What about getting others to have a look. Did you post at some Wikiprojects and the FA boards? Did you ask Bigbaby to standown? Maybe he would. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are suggesting. I did ask them to stand down. They are not hearing that. There is a kind of alt-med vs mainstream thing going on here; BigBaby and Aspro are well known in WP:MED for pushing alt-med "chemicals are bad" stuff. It is usually handle-able but I just cannot deal with the butchery of English nor the aggressive editing on an FA. That is my stress that I am not managing well, so I am walking away. Jytdog (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand and am sorry to hear it. Are you sure about walking? I was about to post at some projects to get some help. Maybe others could join in and collectively ask him/them to stand down if that is what they think is best. Should I post the posts? If this will stress you out one way or the other, then say no. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It definitely needs more eyes so post away! But the better part of valor in Wikipedia is self-control and self-awareness, and I am aware that I am letting my buttons get pushed too hard. Not good for me or the encyclopedia. I may come back over the weekend with my leash more firmly fastened. But for now, I really should walk.  :) Jytdog (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a good call. Knowing when to walk away is a lesson we all learned well from Kenny Rogers in his song about how to not get killed playing poker. :) I'll post where I can and see you back when you're ready. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Which article is this? I can take a look ... Alexbrn (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn, you're an angel. :) It's Water fluoridation. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh yikes. Okay ... Alexbrn (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

"Oh yikes" puts it mildly. I'd go with Holy berjeepers!! with the double exclamation marks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and I started a post at Talk:Water fluoridation. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I've fixed a couple of the obvious grammatical and referencing errors and started a thread on the article talk page about some of my concerns. --RexxS (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Ya'all are awesome. It is great to see the community supporting an FA. Thanks very much Anna! Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You are most welcome. I'm happy to see kind editors coming to the rescue. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Anna is awesome, for sure. But Anna, is there nothing we can do about protecting FAs? A couple of years ago I was concerned about edits to a FA article and had to spend a lot of time in an attempt to defend the article as written -- one would think, after all, that the amount of time that these dedicated editors spent and the careful oversight by other editors would suggest a close to perfect article. Right? Well, that is not the case at all. That editor said, "Dancer and those others have not shown me the grace (the Wikigrace?) of assuming good faith on my part or of considering the possibility that I just might really have the credentials and the real-world practical expertise and experience to enable me to do at a professional level what I’ve done here. Dancer’s comments throughout contain a distinct tone of fussing, griping, grumbling, bickering, protesting, agitating, and finger-wagging. Behavior like that..." We have, and always will, have editors who see themselves as experts -- unlike me who sees herself as a total amateur. On the other hand, I'm not dumb and realize that we need to do something... Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

EGS

Hey, I noticed you participated on the EGS discussion [3]. I added some new info about two Wikipedians who were fighting to keep the article. I think EGS is manipulating the Wikipedia process and this should be addressed. If you could chime in on my point and make it clear to the closing admin, maybe we can stop them. CerealKillerYum (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Ark Bark, ark bark

I see you sent me a warning of edit warring, but left nothing of the sort on the other user's page that is engaged in the same back and forth. Why is that? I am less than impressed and suggest you go bark at someone else. Zedshort (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

continue as you have been, if you like. You are the one introducing poor content, poorly sourced, and edit-warring to try to get it to stick. that is why I gave you the notice. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You did not answer the question. You did not post the same message on the other user's page. Why is that? Zedshort (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I did answer. You are the one edit warring; you are the one who introduced poor content, poorly sourced, and it is being rejected consistently. Your proposed content has no support; edit warring won't increase the level of support for it, nor will creating drama about the meta-issue of whether or not you were edit warring, or why I gave you notice to edit warring. This drama has nothing to do with creating good content, which is what we are about here. if you want to test whether or not you are edit warring, continue as you have been. You will soon find yourself blocked. Only you will be blocked; no one else. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you need some very simple things explained to you. It takes two to make a fight; it takes two to make an edit war. Zedshort (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you need some very simple things explained to you. When one person is trying to undo the damage done by another person's crap edits, then the latter belligerent person repeatedly restores the edits, only one person is edit warring. You really should listen to Jytdog, starting with actually reading through and complying with Wikipedia edit policies. If your edits were of sufficient quality and in line with those policies then they wouldn't be reverted by editors significantly more experienced and respected than you. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Honest Explanation as to the "Hitler" Reference, will try to prove if needed

The Hitler reference was auto-generated. I was editing on Firefox and I personally installed a script that changed certain words on a page to "Hitler". This was a joke meant for another site and I didn't pay attention. I will do anything to prove that this was the reason https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/foxreplace/

As for the other edit, other sources showed that Smith was self-diagnosed. I did my final edit on Internet Explorer. Ylevental (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not find the explanation credible and in any case if you have enabled such an extension you are entirely responsible for its activity when you edit Wikipedia. Period. Never do that again. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

"Activated" phenolics

Would appreciate your review and comments on the dispute over the new Activated phenolics article being discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Reflections

I was reflecting and I think I've had most of guilt of this situation with you. I'm afraid that I was on the defensive and I had a bad reaction, and you has reacted with hostility.[4] I guess I would have reacted just like you. I apologize.

I would leave this in the past and start again. I think that control in Wikipedia is very necessary, but truly I say that I am not, and I will not be, a problem.

I let this message on WikiProject Medicine [5]

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hm, that is very gracious of you, to write here. Thank you. I am sorry I was harsh with you. I will have a look at what you wrote over there. Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Planned RfC about outing

Please let me know whether or not you would like me to wait for you before starting the RfC. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, so sorry! working on it now. Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Buzzfeed story

Hey Jytdog,

I wanted to thank you again for looking into the FP1 Strategies business. I don't know how much of the history of that you looked at, but I had to go to five different boards before I found somebody who agreed something fishy was going on.

I added a few more of FP1's more obvious accounts today to the SPI today; I've just been Googling their client list and seeing who's edited those articles. There's two names that came up again and again as I looked into those articles. Amazingly, those exact two editors were mentioned in the news as being suspected accounts for a PR firm in the case listed right under mine on COI/N.

[6]

Since you closed the Jolly case, I figured I'd ask you directly. Are these worth adding to the SPI? Or am I getting overly paranoid? Thanks, EllenMcGill (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Examples using this tool [7]: They have edited articles within less than an hour of each other dozens of times. E.g., Terri Lynn Land has about 500 total edits to her article; 50 of those are from CF and CS. The RNC is an FP1 client. Joni Ernst has about 900 total edits; 150 of those are from CF and CS. She's an FP1 client. Sometimes they even show up at the same discussion where only 4-5 people comment [8] or here [9] where they argue with editor GrammarXX together, or here [10] where they cordially agree to remove some material. CF has been warned over and over about edit warring and Republican POV-pushing on their talk page, which is another trait all these sockpuppets seem to have in common.[11]. It looks like CF has edited about 500 pages ever, fully a third of which they share with CS. In one case CF even showed up specifically to defend CS as part of an administration case of some kind.[12]

As I said, though, I'm getting kind of paranoid and I realize I'm just playing junior detective here. Do you think this is worth looking into, or should I just leave it? -- EllenMcGill (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

That's enough to add them to SPI I would say, at least per MEAT. May be nothing but this is what CU is for. You can just go ahead and present that evidence there, making clear about a) the client list and b) the editing behavior. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I added that, and a few more good examples from the history of each. Thanks for not thinking I'm crazy! We'll see what shakes out. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

As I commented on the SPI case, I do sincerely hope a check user is done quickly to clear me in this case. On a side note, though, it's pretty disheartening to volunteer hundreds of hours into Wikipedia, a project I care deeply about, only to have my fellow editors apparently believe a really absurd charge hurled at me by paid campaign consultants who have admitted to trying to scrub a Wikipedia page of a client (David Jolly). Reliable messengers, I'm sure! After I'm cleared in the SPI case, I look forward to your heartfelt apologies. I'm hoping someone can make me an original barnstar for having made it into BuzzFeed. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments at SPI, which were very minimal on the drama side. Your note here is more about drama. There is no need for drama, or apologies. In my view there is minimal evidence for a CU, and the subsequent discussion will lay everything out. This is not a big deal, especially if you have not been doing anything wrong. There is no doubt that there is conflict-of-interest editing on political topics, and in this case, the community is trying to identify who is working with FP1. Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Forgive the drama, but it's been a pretty odd week. It's quite strange to discover you've been mentioned in a BuzzFeed article, and that a member of Congress (and perhaps the Church of Scientology?!) are convinced you've been doing sinister things. I guess I'm just surprised none of my long-time fellow Wikipedia editors took the time to stand up for me in the wake of this odd controversy. Perhaps a pitch for Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. In any event, hopefully the SPI will clear up soon and all the strangeness will be in the rearview mirror. Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I hear you, it is weird! Editing politics is really hard in WP and I appreciate at least the gumption of those who take it on. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for COI Resolution

Hi Jytdog (talk), Thanks for the way you dealt with the COI issue on Raheja Developers page, and it was the best thing that happened to the page & me. Regards, Leoaugust (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

you're welcome! Thanks for cooperating with all that. Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Youth time

This is a notification that I started a discussion considering your excessive use of authority considering Youth time article
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. F aristocrat (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Onnit edits and Talk page

Jytdog: Thanks very much for taking the time to explain your COI position and advice for my future handling of COI issues. You are a busy and patient contributor, with patience made especially clear by your generous explanation to the Onnit contributor and more-than-fair interaction with the frustrating BB. Your involvement with Activated phenolics helped to bring that matter to a quick closure, with thanks. Regarding Onnit, I believe my method was more direct to base a solution with reliance on WP guidelines, but, now with your advice, I will try to balance better COI matters on the Talk pages and promotional article content. Good to have your feedback and see you around articles of mutual interest! --Zefr (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a thought

I wonder here, if you're not just denying rope. With these hard economic times, we all need as much as we can get. TimothyJosephWood 00:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh the rope is there in the diffs.  :) Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, I foresee myself spending 30 minutes to find this somewhere in my near future. TimothyJosephWood 01:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

ok, i will stop removing them. diff-finding is a major pain in the butt; something i wish WMF would make easier for us. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Need Help

Hi. A strange page, Big Mean Ethan Dean, was created. It is not encyclopedic. As a more experianced user, can you help me? The creator just messed up my speedy deletion. 68.100.116.118 (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Watching it. You did the right thing. Jytdog (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Further, the creator attacked me on the talk page of that false article. 68.100.116.118 (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Let it slide, what they are doing makes no sense and it is obvious to anyone experienced who sees it. It's just drama. Jytdog (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

And.. it's gone. Jytdog (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Urinary tract infection. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Cirflow (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for jumping in on the Paul Wager-related discussion. I don't have the patience you have for clear COI editors who refuse to follow the rules, but on the other hand I do recognize that the rules are the barrier that is so often written about in articles on the "problems of Wikipedia". I still wonder why volunteer labour has to be so kind to those who want to use the wiki as a promotional device. I am starting to think that there should be a more serious version of "connected contributor" for dealing with such cases. Just wondering out loud :) HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome! I very much appreciate your drive to protect the integrity of Wikipedia - thanks for that work you do! Why be kind? Well, everybody who edits here is human {I don't think there are bots spamming Wikipedia yet :) } and so are we. When I first encounter editors with an apparent COI it isn't clear if they actually have a COI or are advocates; nor if they have a COI if they are actually "paid editors" or just have some other kind of COI. The only way to get clarity, is to get the person to self-disclose, and the best way to do that is through respectful dialogue. So that is first reason to be kind - to get the person to self-disclose which is good for several reasons. Listing the other important reasons...

a) it keeps us (editors who work on COI/advocacy) very safe from OUTING violations by getting the person to self-disclose (as just discussed)

b) by self-disclosing, the editor is already entering into the community;

c) there is actually no bar to editors with a COI, or even paid editors, directly editing Wikipedia articles, and persuading editors with a COI to do what they should do (namely, post proposed changes on the Talk page), goes much better in the context of a kind, respectful dialogue. (sugar gets you way farther, faster, than vinegar).

d) persuading editors who come here only to promote something, to take the time to understand the content policies and guidelines (most of these editors are unaware of them, and don't actually care about them at first) helps these editors understand what kind of changes would be acceptable and saves everybody time down the road. People who come here only to promote something are busy, and don't want to waste their own time, and of course we don't want our time wasted either.

e) sometimes people who come here only to promote X get hooked and start to become productive members of the community on topics where they don't have a COI - this helps grow the editing community.

f) sometimes this stuff gets into the press, and WP looks much better if you haven't made an ass of yourself by being unkind (which I have done sometimes, ack)

Those are some reasons to be kind.  :) Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Semi-protected this page for a while, given the time wasting of vandalism reverts. Jytdog, if you'd like it lifted ahead of time please let me know. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

thanks for doing that! Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Jytdog, I just wanted to leave a visible trace of thanks for your extreme patience, forbearance, and helpfulness with my Northeastern University students this term. There are 54 of them — in WP project reflections, they universally report that they see editing WP as "real world writing," "intimidating but important," and "a way to use [their] privilege at being at a good university to give back" — they also reported taking more time than usual to check sources. Their writing is not always perfectly encyclopedic, but they are very interested in participating. You've helped several significantly. Thank you! WritingTeacherC (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write that! You are welcome. We do try to make and keep our articles about health and medicine rigorous; what "counts" as rigor here is kind of bizarre but makes sense when folks take the time to understand it. Thanks for introducing your students to WP!Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Citing meta-studies

You don't like my citing a meta-study? Did you even look at the source? It fits the guidelines. Revert or your reversion or I will have to escalate. Look at the research quotes and cited before you delete. Sorry if that secondary source doesn't fit your POV. Antisoapbox (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't which article you are talking about; i have had to revert you twice today I think. In any case please raise the issue at the article talk page so others who are interested can participate. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Read the links to my citations before reverting. You clearly didn't do that. The citations clearly meet the standards and the cites support the information posted. Read the citations. Or at least the abstract. They support the statement, indeed to be clear I actually quote with proper context. Or state with more specificity what you think the defect is in the talk page and then we will get a consensus opinion on whether my relevant citation to research and review articles is appropriate. Antisoapbox (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been working on both these articles a lot longer than you and am very familiar with the sources you are citing. Please discuss this at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

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

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Wpegden (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

One

In re this: technically, CSD requires only one (an admin). Copyvios, hoaxes, attack pages, and other obvious violations are, and ought to be, "delete on sight" for admins. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

yep. that was just TMI for a newbie. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

How to find an administrator?

So I don't know if you're following the FP1 SPI case, but it was rejected for having too much text, and I was also told we're not allowed to shorten the text. Do you have any suggestions, or is this the end of the road?

If you don't mind my venting for a moment, I'm quite amazed how impenetrable your bureaucracy is here. At first I was joking that it was like the DMV, but at least at the DMV I eventually go home with my new driver's license or plates. Is this case really not something Wikipedia higher-ups can be made to give a shit about? (Pardon the salty language, I'm more than a little frustrated.)

Sorry for my own role, though, in making that page longer. Thanks, Ellen -- EllenMcGill (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Ellen, there are about 300 people watching this talkpage and mine where you also posted. Many of them are administrators and may choose to act on either post. You can also post at one of the various noticeboards, but it depends on what result you are looking for. I wouldn't recommend this; rather, wait for the SPI to complete then decide what to do next. Best of luck. - Brianhe (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The admin at SPI strongly suggested this morning that I end my involvement in this case, so I suppose I will. If they don't care, there's no reason for me to care. It was always a bit David-and-Goliath for Ellen McGill to try to take on a Washington lobbying firm anyway--I certainly would have never started down this road fighting their account if I'd known from the start who was at the end of it--and I've wasted more time here than I should have. But sincere thanks to you and Jytdog for your help and kindness along the way. Good health and happy writing to both of you! Ellen EllenMcGill (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Water fluoridation

Hi Jytdog.
Yes of course WP is built on collaboration so what has gone wrong here? Why are you censoring me? It must be obvious to you now that this article has ownership. It it is (and you can gage I am getting annoyed) an example of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. It undermines due weight. Many people out-side the US read English WP and the this doesn't reflect the world view. When I added {{globalize/USA}} it was immediately deleted by Yobol before I could do any more edits, ensuring that this page continues to have lengthy argues that prevents the article from having an encyclopedic quality. Any time, night-or-day it is watched by editors that I can't imaging can have proper jobs in order to be on WP 24/7. Nor live in the real world or be bothered to actually read the references given. Well, you have now gotten yourself involved – so sort it out. And if you're the same editor that gets mentioned on the admin notice board, then the noose of the rope I' am been doling out (see the talk page) – tightens my claim that this article has undue ownership -which may now include you. So sort it out! you may call that uncivil also if you wish but I would like to see some real meaningful collaboration on this article too--Aspro (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Removing a picture that is nothing but a personal attack is not censoring you. There is no free speech here; talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, and that image did nothing to help improve the article. You keep right on pushing fringe views around PSCI topics and we will see where that rope goes, won't we? Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

EHS and popular culture

Hi, given that you did not participate in the discussion at Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity#Popular_culture_section, which specifically asked whether the section on popular culture should be included, I find it surprising that you should so vehemently delete the section - to the point of swearing in an edit comment. May I ask why you feel justified in cold-shouldering the discussion I had started? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I did comment on the issue on the talk page. Just not in your RfC. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, for the record it was not my RfC, but it was my subsequent discussion opener (which I linked to above), and you did in fact comment (unsigned) in the RfC discussion. But mainly, you have now twice deleted the section we are discussing. In the interests of seeing what we are talking about I am going to restore it, but I want to reassure you here that this is not content warring on my part, I just think that the discussion is chaotic enough as it is and we all need to at least be able to see what we are talking about while it is ongoing. If you still disagree and revert again, I will not contest your judgement. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Be silent?

I really hope that with this edit summary, you didn't intend the meaning to be, basically, "STFU" because that is the tone it has. Also, look at the source material, it is directly what the source states, careful wording is deliberate. Montanabw^(talk) 21:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It meant let the content be silent, which is precisely what the edit did. I did not mean shut the fuck up. We cannot seem to agree on very basic things here, and the content is basically saying nothing, so why include it. This is a common solution to problems like this Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I am glad you clarified your meaning. OK, so no harm, no foul there. That said, your edit was not in line with what the source material said. It wasn't "silent," it was negating beyond what the source could verify. You really do need to look at those sources, because the language used is probably chosen for a reason and we really should stay as close to it as we can without venturing into too-close paraphrasing territory. Montanabw^(talk) 00:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Happy to discuss article content at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

ACCF

Regarding this edit, I want you to know I wasn't trying to sloganeer for anyone by adding it (though I gather from your edit summary that you thought the DC IP had added it?)--I just wanted a compact mission statement from the group, and that was the best I could come up with. The italics, on the other hand, were the IP's. I've got no objection to your taking it out, though (and feel free to doublecheck me elsewhere, too).

BTW, my assumption is that this IP is another FP1 attack dog--more on that article's talk page. EllenMcGill (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh that's funny. hm. I don't think we should re-broadcast mission statements that way, but if you think it is great pls feel free to restore it. I generally stay out of political articles Far far away. :) Jytdog (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I trust your judgement on that. EllenMcGill (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Message from Realmessage

It seems that, again, a message posted on my talk page is actually for you, this time from Realmessage (talk · contribs), see this edit. Could you reply (if necessary)? Thanks, and happy editing, as usual. --Edcolins (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

done, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week : nominations needed!

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

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

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

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Ramy El-Batrawi article

Hi there,

Thank you for editing my article, but I have been reading about mr. El-Batrawi, collecting a lot of information about him for couple of years. And you deleted everything I wrote. I would like to use the information I collected for many years. So how can we fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrich77 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 22 April 2016‎ (UTC)

It is not your article. Please discuss article content at the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Elohim

Jt, you are quite right in deleting this. But maybe you can say something to this person to let him down gently. (?) Regards. PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

User:PraeceptorIP - I replied to them in this dif. I have copied that reply below. Please tell me, what do you think of what I wrote?

Hi Realmessage. Thanks for your note. Thanks too for acknowledging that you are new to Wikipedia. Please be aware that although this is indeed "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", this place is not a wild west - there is kind of "rule of law" here. The community has developed what we call policies and guidelines that govern content and editor behavior. Your edit violated several of those policies. This is not a terrible thing! A lot of people who first come here don't understand the policies. But you are obligated to try to understand them, and to follow them. This is actually part of the "terms of service" that you agreed to when you created your account, and that you again agree to each time you edit. The relevant policies are WP:OR (you cannot add your own thoughts or beliefs to Wikipedia), instead, per the policy WP:VERIFY, everything you add needs to be directly supported by what we consider to be a reliable source (which ideally is independent of the subject). The actual content that gets added needs to be what we call neutral - you need to actually try to write without coloring what the literature says, and to give what we call "weight" to content according to what is in the literature. Finally, Wikipedia cannot be used as a platform to promote any perspective. Your edit violated every one of those policies. If that doesn't make sense to you I can try to explain more, but please do have a read of each of those policies before you react. You can reply here. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

do let me know. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it could have been a little lighter in tone. But it is certainly within the zone of fair comment and not worth my second guessing you (or appropriate that I do so). PraeceptorIP (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This is pretty much the same thing I wrote to you. Jytdog (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey mate,

Thanks for deleting my edits at Imperial Chemical Industries. Apparently a major fire that injured 60+ firefighters and led to major reforms of the Fire Service is non-notable newspaper fodder. Shit like this is I quit editing wikipedia a few years ago. Good to see nothing has changed. I'm out.

-- I bet you'll delete this too

Sorry you are upset. Sources? Right article for that stuff? Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for this AM (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

You need to be clearer

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.

---

…in your accusation that I personalized the Cladogram issue. Your threat of ANI contained no links. The matter for me is purely "academic"—is this a proper application of the tool, or not? I am persuadable otherwise, but I suspect not. It appears likely to be a misuse of a quantitative graphic analytical device—whose line lengths are intended to convey quantitative information—to present qualitative information that is therefore misleading, and that otherwise makes articles much harder to edit (in the area of the information to which the graphic analysis is misapplied). There is nothing personal in my views, or analysis. You need to make clear, here if possible, what it is you are getting at, in threatening me. And, as I have been away from that matter, for personal reasons, I will look to the discussion that you started. But I am sure that I am too late (and guessing that no one thought carefully about what I had already stated). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Leprof 7272 you obviously personalised the issue - all you need to do is look at my talk page, your comments are almost laughable. Demanding 'this' and 'that' needs to be done. Wiki is meant to be a collaborative effort, yet you seem to lack the ability to do this. All someone needs to do is look at the state of your talk page. It's littered with comments from other editors calling you out, it seems like all you want to do is fight with others:

1. Personalising the issue on my TP
2. Warned about 'non-neutral wording' on project TPs
3. Excessive over tagging & excessive comments at Acetone peroxide, notified by Boghog
4. A second notification of your excessive comments at Villa Baviera, again notified by Boghog
5. Another editor (Turdas) warning you of tag bombing at Merlin Mann
6. Displaying article ownership qualities at Scum of the Earth Church, then edit war & disruptive edit warnings, as notified by Walter Görlitz

XyZAn (talk) 08:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Thank-you for NPOV part 1: secondary sources

I have read and I am about to re-read some sections of your user page and I find it very interesting and very well explained. Ferrer1965 (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Damn we were supposed to talk today but I got completely absorbed by the stuff below and forgot. Try tomorrow? Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Swami article

Hi, not sure if you saw my question at Talk:Swami Premananda (guru). Maybe it doesn't matter anymore since socks probably aren't trustworthy anyway. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The wiki family

For all you and I spat on some articles, we appear to be in accord on helping out some folks. It's all just one big happy, dysfunctional wiki-family at times, isn't it? Kudos where due for a well-timed remark. Montanabw^(talk) 02:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Same to you. :) Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Danielle Sheypuk

A tag has been placed on Danielle Sheypuk requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I forgot to do that cleanup. Jytdog (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Diagrams

Regarding the short-comings of the M&A diagrams, I've done some digging in the template notes here & here (as well as this), and have come up with a semi-solution to the business units/divisions sold/spun off. It can be found here: Allergan – any thoughts? Your opinion is always appreciated. XyZAn (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Strepsils

Presumably you meant Talk:Throat lozenge. I've commented there. Is there another prior discussion of which I should be aware? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I did, thanks! I will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

ANU Ranking

I need you to disclose your COI about education right now. I think you are destroying the article of ANU on purpose. Deleting the stellarator thing is OK but The "Computer Science Subject Ranking" I added yesterday is not a promotion and it is supported by cite source. What's more, you keep standing in the way of adding the Ranking Table which is supported by convincing cite sources. Ranking is not a promotional material but a performance evaluation. --Miyawaki kyoto (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

i don't have any COI about education. Look, you are a student there, and are all your edits have been about great the school is. That is really not OK. Jytdog (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Block and ban

Jytdog, editor NeatGrey wasn't banned; they were blocked, and as it turns out, incorrectly so. I've already removed a few of the strike-outs you made; please check to see what contributions you reverted or negated and undo that. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, User:Drmies, what is the deal then with this, the other "sock"? On NeatGrey's page you wrote something about WP:CLEANSTART, but if the other account is Spectra239, the two accounts worked extensively in the same fields, and as I understand it part of clean start is that you walk completely away from the area where the other account did worked. Can you help me understand this what is going on here? To be clear my concern for the encyclopedia has two parts. First, the transhumanist articles in WP are highly disrupted at the moment, and these accounts are right in the midst of that. (there appear to be at least two "camps" that are coordinating off-wiki... hard for me to sort out). But lots of turmoil here on Wiki. Secondly, Neatguy has the trappings of a paid editor and I was considering filing a COIN about this to have those especially paid-like articles looked at. And the oldest account among the two of them is from Dec 2015 but there appears to be a very experienced Wikipedian working these accounts; it appears that there is a yet older account somewhere. I laid some of this out here. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Single user let their own account go, starts a new one. CLEANSTART addresses really only problematic/problematicized accounts, which isn't what was going on here: the old account wasn't in any trouble. I don't know why the picked a new one, the old name was cool, but they did, and they shouldn't have been blocked. By the same token, they should have placed a note announcing the et cetera. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for replying User:Drmies (pinging you as I won't presume you are watching this page). I agree with you that Spectra239 was not under any active blocks and that they need to record the accounts on each page, and make it clear that the Spectra239 account is abandoned.

However their edits were coming into focus for me as problematic, and they knew that - see here for example, and their strange response. I can walk you through that if you like. I think they were also coming into focus for User:DavidGerard per Spectra239's edits on Cryonics and this AfD. The abandoning of the old account and starting a new one was not good faith in my view. It is also very hard for me to believe that there are not accounts older than Spectra239 - their editing is very good and they are sophisticated in their understanding of how this place works - way beyond someone who started here in Dec 2015 (their contribs). My preference (for what that's worth) would have been that lifting the block was made dependent on disclosing yet older accounts that may have abandoned the same way. Not sure you all asked about that. Would you consider re-instating the block and making the unblock dependent on disclosure of past accounts? I am considering opening a COIN case to address my concerns about paid editing and past accounts to see what the community can figure out from on-wiki (see here for the list of articles they have created. They are actually pretty good editors (I like a lot of their editing, which is incisive and well sourced, always) but something hinky is going on. What do you think?? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

adding correct ping here User:David Gerard Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hey Jytdog, you know I'm on this talk page like ham on rye. I have no opinion on NeatGrey's comments/contents, or that of the previous account. Bbb23 ran CU and that's how NeatGrey got blocked; if there had been more accounts I am sure he would have blocked them (I think it's $5 for a "collateral" CU block--slim pickings, but Bbb has a high grocery bill). No, I'm not going to reblock them: if the account makes problematic edits, those need to be dealt with in the usual method; socking and CU and all that are, by fiat of ArbCom, no longer an issue. Please keep in mind that there are only problems if a. accounts collude in discussions; b. old accounts were in serious trouble and new accounts get in the same hot water in the same area. None of that applies here. Later, Drmies (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, i am hearing you. Super clear. Thanks!! Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• In other news--so you know the user was initially CU-blocked, and the way to get CU-unblocked is to go through, you guessed it, ArbCom. You know also that I'm one of your biggest fans here, even if I confuse you sometimes with JzG/Guy, who also has a G and a Y in his name. But some of my colleagues on ArbCom are less than happy when they see your name come up again, and it is entirely possible that I saw one of them say that "Jytdog needs to calm the fuck down". No, not possible--Arbs don't talk like that. By the same token, they have to deal with a request, look into the evidence, investigate and bribe witnesses, post motions and arbitrate decisions, etc etc. It's all very tedious and takes away from our main occupation, which is lounging in San Francisco surrounded by groupies.

  But here's the thing. If I remember correctly you got brought up on ANI or AN not too long ago (or was it an ArbCom request?) where your detractors said you were being overzealous in your prosecution of COI cases. In this case I think that may have been a possibility, and I think it is a good idea to be more...not careful..."discerning", I think that's the best term. I don't rightly know why in this case NeatGrey was included with the others in the SPI, since in at least some of the discussions they were leaning in the opposite direction, if I remember correctly. Just a word to the wise. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to take that wisely. :) It was actually NeatGrey who brought that recent ANI case btw... which I now understand since I had asked his prior self about editing with a conflict. Thanks for the taking the time to write to me. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

As someone who is on this page like peanut butter on pizza, as well as being a fish who likes to beat dead horses, I read with great interest Drmies' posting of what another Arb did not say. Someone sure sounds grumpy over there (I'm betting they missed their nap, or maybe just need to be burped), but it's grumpiness accompanied by great power, sort of. Smart dogs learn that some people form rigid opinions based upon impressions instead of upon detailed examination of the facts, so presenting a good impression is a good idea. Hey look: [13], [14]. That's how Tryptofish lounges with groupies. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Trypto. those are great examples of smoooooth, non-sharp, not-a-pattern-of-alarming-behavior disagreement. Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Even though I felt like punching that editor for what they were saying about the survivors of a suicide victim. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

yes that whole self-restraint thing is so important here; my slipping my own leash too often is what provided grounds for my TBAN. btw how does a fish punch? maybe you just trout? :) Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Well-said! I imagine that a lamprey might sucker-punch. You can lead a trout to water, but you cannot tuna fish. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily paid editing; the main problem with bad editors in transhumanism is that they are relentless advocates, and think the rest of humanity is just incorrect for not being as enthusiastic as they are, so immediately leap to accusations of bad faith, shilling and COI (a.k.a. The Personal Attack That's Allowed) when someone says "what, no, this is all rubbish". Lots of advocates, all networked. (compare cryptocurrency editors, who are similarly networked relentless advocates who think the rest of humanity is just incorrect, and are in it for the money.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I am staying out of the deletion arguments for the most part. I cannot figure out what is causing this huge ruckus in transhumanist articles now. It has definitely drawn advocates out of the woodwork, some of whom are employees of transhumanist institutions so are arguably paid editors. But do you know what is driving the ruckus? Jytdog (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I do agree that COI accusations - actual accusations - are flung way too quickly. Which why I ask people. :) Jytdog (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk Page

I apologize. I truly wasn't aware that there was a huge block of discussion on the finasteride talk page that appeared in the last week. I haven't checked the talk page in months since I didn't see any reference to talk page discussion on the main article. However, even without reading the discussion, I do think it is extremely misleading to cherry pick half of a statement from the underlying source document to make it seem like finasteride side effects are rare. Frankly, the term "rare" is completely subjective and I don't believe a statement like that belongs in a scientific article per MEDRS. Doors22 (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. See you at the Talk page if you want to continue discussing. Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Virino Evaluation

Hi, I saw that you called the Virino hypothesiss on Prion original research. I also saw that you are on WikiProgect Medicane and that the Virino article has a template that says it needs to be evaluated by a medical professional as the scientific accuracy is questioned. Maybe you would like to Evaluate the Virino article if you are a doctor. Spidersmilk (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a doctor but i will i do edit a lot in the health topics; i'll have a look. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Easypod

Jytdog, I've begun making some changes to the Easypod page. You moved some material to the talk page, along with a note about how it puts UNDUE weight on a primary source. I initially introduced that info because I thought this study added to the notability of the device. Wasn't aware of the MEDRS guideline. If I delete this content from the article can I safely remove the neutrality message? I realize there are still other issues to address in the article, and I'm hoping others may accept the invitation to improve it. In the meantime, I've removed several of the images and tried to rewrite some content in a more straightforward manner. Medscrib (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The article you wrote only sang the praises of the device and instructed people how to use it. But I had found, and linked for you, two independent review articles (secondary sources) that mention this device. They discuss positives and negatives; how it is better than pre-existing devices in some ways, and worse in others. The sourcing you used was poor - primary or not-independent - and that, along with your desire to please your client (and being unfamiliar with WP and its policies), all together caused the initial article - and the existing draft - to fail NPOV. Starting with really excellent independent secondary sources is essential for writing good WP content. Find them, read them, summarize them plainly, and your content can "stick". I am not sure the device meets NOTABILITY yet and whether they can be article, but even if it doesn't, content that is sourced very well and summarizes the sources well, can still be used in some other existing article. This is why starting out with independent, secondary sources is essential. Does that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, grammatically at least, your sentence that begins "I am not sure the device meets..." doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I think I get the gist. You mention you linked two independent secondary source review articles that mention the device. I'd like to review them and incorporate that content but where did you link them? I don't see the links. I'm actually interested to see negative review material about the device. (I'm sure to the extent it exists, Merck would want to see that, too.) I guess my bigger question is this: Do I personally remove your NPOV message once I feel I've edited the article to be more balanced (with higher quality references) or do you do that once you're satisfied? I guess I'll have to read up more on what the word NOTABILITY means in a Wikipedian context. Seems to me like it must be different from the everyday meaning of the word. Medscrib (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, again. I wanted to thank you again here for your recent additions to the Easypod Talk page. Really very helpful. I'm wondering about another thing that I hope you can answer for me here, as it goes beyond the Easypod issue. I've disclosed that I'm working for a client, but that work is only for the Easypod work. If I decide I want to contribute to Wikipedia in an independent fashion, and not representing that client, how do I do that without people thinking I'm editing on the client's behalf, or having my other work reflect in any way on that client? Does that question make sense? I realize you don't need to help with this, but I know you also value the dialogue and want to improve the community, so I thought I'd ask.Medscrib (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You also seem surprised that I've taken offense at some of your previous posts, so (with respect) I thought I'd give you some feedback that might give you some insight into that: When you nominated the post for speedy deletion, you wrote "Speedied it. Hurry on over" or something to that effect. You wrote that this was the most overt piece of advertising you'd ever seen on Wikipedia. In your recent post -- the one you said I took personally, you seemed to be making the decision about whether there should be an easypod post on behalf of all Wikipedia. And then in one of your recent posts you said something like "If you get a real business going". While it adds spice and life to the conversation , those kinds of statements and behaviours also get someone's back up. For what it's worth. Again, I sincerely appreciate your recent additions to the Easypod Talk page and your willingness to engage in a deeper conversation.Medscrib (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

AfD

Hello again, is there is a simpler way as the contributor of those articles, I can go ahead and do a delete without having to put it up for AfD ? I have saved the stuff in Sandbox and whenever I find relevant sources to support these articles (which I don't know when) at that stage maybe I can run it through a draft-> article creation process. Will be great if you can use your superpowers and knock those articles without wasting other editors time through lengthy AfD debates and possibly prevent another episode of my reacting to some other editor comments et al.. Would that work ? Cheers AM (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hm. The AfD on the book article is too far gone to stop. On the Shilpa Menon article, I can userify that for you. I'll do that now. Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

AfD put up for speedy, deletion log entry deleted, article userified, leftover page and talk page speedied. done. Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

if you don't want the article that i userified you can request deletion by blanking it and pasting this "user requests deletion of a userpage" template on it: {{Db-userreq}}. I will leave that decision to you. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you. What is better ? Userified or DB-userreq ? (Tempted to try new stuff here, maybe gives me a chance to try this DB-userreq).. AM (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hm. there are different "spaces" in Wikipedia. A "space" is defined by what comes before the title.

• Consensus is in "mainspace" and is an article about the concept of "consensus"
• Wikipedia:CONSENSUS is in "wikipedia space" and is our policy on consensus.
• Template:Consensus is some template about consensus, and it is in "template space".
• Draft:Consensus doesn't exist, but if it did, it would be a draft article on consensus. It is in "draft space"
• User:Jytdog/Consensus doesn't exist, but if it did, that would be something I am playing with in my "userspace"

"userification" is moving an article from main space to userspace. I could have "draftified" the Shilpa Menon article but it seemed better to move it into your userspace, for reasons I won't go into now. So the article is already userified: User:Ashleymillermu/Shilpa Menon. see? it is in "user space".

"DB-userreq" is a speedy deletion tag that is only for pages in your own userspace. You can't use it anywhere else. Above you said you saved stuff to a sandbox page. if that is all you need and the userified article is just clutter (or you don't want the userified article for some other reason), then you are free to tag it for deletion to get rid of it. That is what DB-userreq is for. You can use it to get rid of sandboxes, or any page in your userspace. If you want to keep the userified article and work on it, you are free to do that too. whatever you like. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks much. That was such an awesome explanation of how stuff works on Wikipedia. Wow. AM (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Why did you rollback changes to Effects of Porn page?

I edited this page last night and this morning see my changes have been removed by you. The page as it stands is biased and my edits added a significant number of quality references. Please revert to my saved page changes. UnicornRainbowMonkey (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note but we discuss article changes at the Talk page - please feel free to raise this there. btw I did explain in my edit note here and as i promised there, i left this and this on your Talk page. Please read that stuff before you open a Talk page discussion. ThanksJytdog (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I think there are big time differences between where you are and where I am so I am only now seeing your comments. Reading them now...

...saw the discussion titled "References" on my talk page and replied.

It appears that you found the article Talk page: Talk:Effects_of_pornography#JytDog_why_did_you_rollback_my_edits.3F. Great! That is the place to discuss this. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Comprehensive coaching

Hello Jytdog,

I just wanted to say that over time, I've been trying to do more editing on the Charlotte's Web (cannabis) page, not having much luck. But I have to say that the detailed tips and rules list that you made for me has been the most helpful. Definitely you spent more time on my behalf than other editors. This is like learning law! Just wanted to say thank you for your extra time and effort. Listenforgood (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome! Sorry i have not been able to swing back by and look at your refs. I am sympathetic to your plight. There are not a lot of high quality sources about Charlotte's Web cannabis and you are going to have a hard time generating good content until some exist. Hopefully the folks who make it will start working more with academics who will publish, so stuff will get into the literature. Medical cannabis is just a wierd, wierd space. I plan to work on the whole suite around cannabinoids/cannabis after I tackle a couple of other big jobs, so I will be swinging back around to you eventually! Jytdog (talk) 06:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The Realm of Caring is working with Johns Hopkins University on a new observational study. I totally agree medical info has to be solid.

Absolutely. "As the legal landscape for medical marijuana unfolds, it is important to distinguish [medical marijuana] from “medical CBD” and other specific cannabinoids."

Thank you! My thoughts: Charlotte's Web (cannabis) should be a page about the plant, and maybe it's history of being introduced by the media as cannabis. A new page, Charlotte's Web (Hemp Extract), should be about the Stanley product using the actual name it's called now. Your thoughts?

Re: The Cannabidiol page: Would the following reference be considered a primary source, or a summary (another word for review??): "Multiple small studies of CBD safety in humans in both placebo-controlled and open trials have demonstrated that it is well tolerated across a wide dosage range. No significant central nervous system side effects, or effects on vital signs or mood, have been seen at doses of up to 1500 mg/day (p.o.) or 30 mg (i.v.) in both acute and chronic administration." Your thoughts?

References

Listenforgood (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

on the charlotte's web thing. I don't agree with what you propose there. The charlotte's web plant and the extract from it are both are undefined things, the first with a ton of media hype, the second slickly packaged marketing. so from a science perspective they are in the same murky waters. neither has been well-studied.

Cannabidiol is a specific chemical. The article you link to is a review article. We need talk about what "review" articles are, i guess, and how you figure out whether an article is a review.... Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The CW thing: I agree with you completely; CW/plant and CW/extract AND "medical marijuana" is very undefined. An encyclopedia should be defining and illuminating. Most people can't define hemp properly. My thought:

1) Recreational pot = psychoactive, and who knows what you're actually getting

2) THC-dominant medical marijuana - psychoactive side effects present

3) THC-CBD balanced medical marijuana - 1:1 ratio of CBD-to-TCH - psychoactive

4) CBD-dominant medical marijuana - 2:1, 5:2, 20:1 ratios of CBD-to-THC - diminished psychoactivity

5) Medical CBD hemp - 30:1 ratio: < or = 0.3% THC, no psychoactivity

So-called "medical marijuana" is HORRIBLE for my son who has schizophrenia. THC has sent him to the hospital more than once.

The clinical reviews about "cannabinoids" (which usually are blending-in significant amounts of THC - emphasis: cannabis) confound the reader about the medicinal impact from the nearly-single cannabinoid (CBD emphasis: hemp) in CW. Specifics could be noted on one page, but using better sub-headings?

The kids and families regaining their lives built the story that built the marketing. The story of penicillin had a different origin in the '20's (scientists get credit), but the story/origin of CW (farmer ? families ? get credit) is honestly steeped in our current media-saturated culture.

Cannabidiol: usually I see the word "review" or "systematic review" -- this particular "summary" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4707667/#R67 confused me. Is the above text/source ok to post on the cannabidiol page? Thank you so much! (and thank you for re-aligning my copy... I'll get this)Listenforgood (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Just noticed that you knew about the editor's COI for European Graduate School a month ago. Good job.

CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Your revert in cancer immunotherapy

Hi, I appreciate your comment (too strong a statement on too weak a source) on the revert but I'm not sure how to address it. I can see now I worded it a little awkwardly. I guess you had time to read the source, so what statement wording do you think is justified ? Do you doubt the statement and want MEDRS, or do you accept it's essentially true and just want better/different sources ? (It almost seems a statement of the obvious given that checkpoint inhibitors allow lymphocytes to avoid their suppression by the tumour, and cancer prognosis (in many types) is widely accepted to relate to the level of TILs.) I thought what I wrote pretty much reflected the relevant part of the source but we could say "Dr X says ..." if you think it is a minority opinion. Cheers - Rod57 (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your note. Primarily yes the source is too weak to support such a broad claim; it would need a review. On top of that the source doesn't say "In GI cancers only tumors with Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes benefit from checkpoint inhibitor therapy." The thing about infiltrated tumors goes back to 2006 and is a general biomarker for better outcomes in colorectal (not all GI) cancers. The article cites PMID 17008531 for this. What he says is pretty complex - the overall goal of immunotherapy in GI cancers to is to achieve infiltration and I think he sees checkpoint inhibitors as part of that.

On a broader level, what Heery talked about at the conference, is current understandings based on work to date, which is a bunch of small, Phase I or II clinical trials. This is very far from "accepted knowledge" but rather is current state of what we think we might probably be true. But you stated this as a fact.

And this brings up a broader thing that I have been wanting to figure out how/where/when to discuss with you. You and I share an interest (along with just a few others that I am aware of in WP) in the process of drug discovery and development and the role of companies in bringing in new medicines to market, and I have been glad to see your interest in that stuff. But I'm ... uncomfortable with your editing. A lot of it, in my view, bleeds over into WP:NOTNEWS kind of stuff (reporting clinical trial results in detail), and you fairly often make edits like the one I reverted, where you express "here is what we currently think is going on" as "here is what we know". I'd like to ask you to consider keeping in mind that especially in drug development, what looks promising in early trials often turns out to be a dud, and even extremely well validated hypotheses end up being falsified when they are finally tested in big trials (best known example of that is the "antioxidants prevent cancer" hypothesis, shockingly proved to be 180 degrees wrong in the SELECT trial). I am sorry if this seems intrusive, but I hope you are open to discussing. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Keratoconus

I just read the WP:ELNO which you linked and I understand why you removed the blog. but why did you remove other organizations? Keratoconus Support and Awareness and UK Keratoconus Self Help and Support Group? also, this blog is actually homepage of the largest support community available and it is full of helpful articles shared by kc patients, I think there should be an exception. k18s (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

And... why did you keep Keratoconus Australia Association? how is it different with others which you removed? k18s (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes I should have removed the Australia one - thanks! In general WP articles are meant to convey encyclopedic accepted knowledge, we generally don't proliferate ELs to support groups for diseases/conditions. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Opiod Replacement Therapy (ORT)

Hui, I just wanted to ask you a few questiosn about the redirect for the ORT article. Looking at the two pages, I agree the ORT article itself needed to be updated a bit to better account for the medical, as well as social rationale for that kind of treatment. That being said, the ORT seems really to need to be Main article for the management section. If that sounds good to you, I'd be happy to recreate the ORT page, add the appropriate content to the recreated page, and add the main tag. Bpmcneilly (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's discuss at Talk:Opioid use disorder - I'll start a section there. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You know...

When someone *on his second day* as a registered user, uses the words level 3 heading in an edit summary, my radar starts beeping. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

hmmmm. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Ethereum. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I have flagged this your behavior on the referenced Talk page. And I further invite you to, if you believe your vague attack is in any way justified, to take it to the proper forum where your vague allegations would need to be made specific, could be constructively responded to, and evaluated by non-involved administrators to review your assertions. N2e (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh N2e this is the very wrong direction. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

For the spectators: the above is in regards to conflict of interest on Ethereum, with N2e being one of the conflicted - David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Eh no drama. They had a point in that I should have raised my concerns on their Talk page not on the article Talk page. I have struck at the article talk page and opened a discussion at their talk page. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

MRSA

It was my thought that the MRSA page ought to be coordinated with the drug's page on Wikipedia. If you choose to revoke the changes to the MRSA Page, perhaps change the drug's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asigkem (talk • contribs) 06:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! We should continue discussing at Talk:Methicillin-resistant_Staphylococcus_aureus#Use_of_Spelling:_.27Methicillin.27. I also pinged at WT:MED so others should be weighing in. it is an interesting point you are raising. I'm not sure how we should respond in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Disclosure

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.

---

I have voluntarily disclosed that I am a post-finasteride-syndrome patient. That is enough disclosure for my editing purposes on the finasteride page. You have not answered whether you are a paid editor or whether you have edited Wikipedia under different sock accounts. I have also previously requested that you not write on my talk page in the past which you just disrespected. Doors22 (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

No (socking), and no (paid editing). My apologies for forgetting that you asked me not to post on your page; I just went to self-revert but you had already done that. Would you please respond about whether you are participating in the litigation? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I have a personal policy of not disclosing personal information on Wikipedia. It quickly becomes a slippery slope. I stated that I am a PFS patient and that is enough. You should be able to respect this as you slipped up last year and posted a reference URL that revealed personally identifying information that you had stricken in short order. However, as I have stated in the past, my hope is to ensure Wikipedia has the most up-to-date safety information on this drug so consumers can make an informed decision on whether they want to take the risks for cosmetic purposes. It is also worth highlighting there is currently no reference of any litigation in the article so it doesn't really matter. Doors22 (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The question is relevant to conflict of interest. No one here cares what you are name is; what matters are relationships. Your question about paid editing was relevant and I answered it. Please answer: are you participating in litigation or not? It absolutely matters and is discussed in the COI guideline, as I already mentioned. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You are violating both the WP:CRY guideline and WP:AGF. I have already disclosed long ago that I am a PFS patient which explains my thorough knowledge of the subject matter. I have been very upfront about my motivation for my involvement in the finasteride article which is to promote accurate public knowledge. Just because your misrepresentation of Belknap's research has been exposed does not mean you can aggressively point fingers at others and change the topic. You cannot get aggressive and accuse people of having "inside information" and conflicts of interest just to distract from your own bad behavior.Doors22 (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) But to the question "are you participating in litigation or not?", the answer is ... ? Alexbrn (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not "crying" nor claiming anything. I am asking a question. Jytdog (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually this is the point where I generally kick things to COIN and get out of the way. I will open a case and then will get out of the way so this becomes depersonalized. Jytdog (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly what you are doing. Without any proof you are assuming I have a COI which is in violation of a wide range of policies. Feel free to take this up on the COIN board, that is your right, but I think you are just putting your own credibility at risk.Doors22 (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a reasonable assumption you have a COI. I, for one, certainly think you do now! Defending this Project from COI-tainted editing is a very worthwhile activity. Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For being inordinately nice. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I second that sentiment. It is so moved. =) EllenMcGill (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Well-deserved and earned! I saw your friendly and patient efforts to educate our mutual COI friend. And your sincere expression of regret when you saw that he'd turned away from the straight path you showed him – that too was a mark of your character, and impressed me even more. (I regret I didn't find a quiet way to give you an early heads-up that I'd requested an SPI.) Lwarrenwiki (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks that is very kind of you. Thanks for your work with them too! Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

AN/I notice

Hi, there is an AN/I discussion about User:JaberEl-Hour. You were involved in this case, so please comment at AN/I. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

That was quick! already indeffed. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Advice on a (nice) paid editor

User:Madcloud01 is a self-confirmed COI editor working for St. Martin's Press, and from what I can tell very much wanting to be compliant with policies. They generally update the bibliographies in Wikipedia articles with new books by authors with pages here. I have conversed with the user, and am not knowledgeable enough to give sufficient advice on where the line lies between adding uncontroversial facts and promotion. This is a typical change: diff, and diff. I am less clear about "forthcoming books", such as here: diff. The user has also created some articles for authors such as Claire Dederer and for the book Arc of Justice. I didn't want to take this to COIN because I don't think that there is a problem, but I wanted a more experienced eye looking at it. If you have time, please let me know what you think I can say to her that could be helpful. Thanks, LaMona (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice catch. I agree with what you are saying; thanks for asking for my thoughts.

About their edits you bring.... No sources on those difs, ack. And they are directly editing instead of proposing changes on the Talk page and directly creating articles instead of putting them through AfC with a disclosure of their COI on the talk page. They have nailed the disclosure piece of COI management but they are not dealing with the "peer review" piece.

I have a template-y thing in my sandbox here that I adapt per user, that explains the logic behind the "peer review" for conflicted editors in Wikipedia, and what it means concretely. In the section in my sandbox above that, there is a blurb about why managing COI is important: "Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do)."

If I were to jump in I would write that blurb and then adapt the "peer review" template from my sandbox to explain peer review and ask if they will do it.

Feel free to use any of that, or not! Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Jytdog. I'll put together something for the user, borrowing from your template. Will also advise about sourcing. I have some ideas now. Take care, LaMona (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit war - seriously!

I am certainly sorry to have clearly upset you. That was not my intention - but seriously accusing me of an edit war over red link removals. Seems a bit rich to me. However I will leave well alone if you feel so strongly about it. Perhaps you could even write the articles an remove the "red link" issue entirely.

Subject: Gordon–Conwell Theological Seminary - and I seriously can't see how Wikipedia:Verifiability relates - in the slightest.

Again sorry :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

here is your actual edit. You do not describe it accurately. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay I see you reverted the additions along with the link removals. Seems I'm being held to a higher standard thatn those who put the notable faculty there in the first place. I will see what I can find. I will re-remove the links and at least add in the current principal, :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

With a source, great. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

COI

It is amazing how Adam Gussen article on Wikipedia has speedy deletion right before Alan Sohn runs against him to take his seat. Don't worry, there are MANY examples like this. Gotta go to bed now. Wasickta (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Wasickta (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Please do bring diffs at COIN so we can think about this clearly. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Alansohn had posted his own name and city on wikipedia for the world to see. Wasickta (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

You are a pretty new editor; please know that the way you are handling this is not good. I believe that if you continue in this way you are going to end up blocked by an admin (I am not an admin) or after a community discussion. I urge you to walk away from this or change how you are approaching this. If you want to know how to approach this better, please ask. Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I already walked away from it. You can see, I even changed my comment and deleted the "censorship" comment I had left. My only question about your summary for the closure(which is spot on 100%) - is this the conclusion of the closure? Wasickta (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The specific COIN thread you opened is now closed (someone may challenge the close but I kind of doubt it). Anyone can bring a new COIN case about this, anytime they want. Any new COIN case will need to be much stronger and cleaner than the one you brought; if any future case is weak the COIN filings will start to become harassment, and the bringer of the case will be subject to action for that. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		For keeping calm and promoting rational thought in a heated moment. Wasickta (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, please be more careful before saying that you disagree with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ack. struck, stricken. I am sorry. Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Barnstar restored! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

my apologies again. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

And my thanks again. It's already water under the bridge. No more worries. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Alansohn is edit warring with me over an article(https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rumson-Fair_Haven_Regional_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=718668358 article). This article is in the same state he lives in and competitor to his towns house prices. By scaring people from other neighborhoods he is trying to increase land value of his town. Alansoh has not implemented any of the recommendations you made. Wasickta (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

First, I don't think anyone agreed with you about Alansohn having a COI for all of NJ. Second, WP:AGF is policy here for very good reason and in general you need to be careful about reading motivations into what anyone does here. Thirdly, on that specific edit, the NY Times is a source there so there is no way you can argue that it is only minor/local significance or that it is not really well sourced (I remember it, actually). So in my view you have no valid basis for removing it. Fourthly, edit warring is never good; you should work it out on talk, on the basis of content policies and guidelines and not on your speculations on motivation. If you can't work it out on the talk page, you can use dispute resolution, see WP:DR; but again I don't see a good basis in policy for removing it. Jytdog (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

1)You wrote that I should ask what approach I should take regarding the COI. Please share.

2) You know what WP:AGF is like? Imagine if your leg becomes wet and someone tells you it is raining. You believe them it is raining right? But imagine if then your leg starts to becomes warm. Would you start to suspect it was piss?

Wasickta (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Some broad principles:

1) Yes, you have to AGF. You cannot read anyone's mind and the layers of speculation in what you wrote about alansohn's motivations for keeping the content about CD/school incident that happened 12 years ago are just... well to be honest, they make you seem like a sloppy thinker and a conspiracy theorist. I struggle with those kinds of leaps in logic on about anything, but they have no place at all in discussions of COI. In COI matters you need diffs showing really, really obvious promotion or denigration. Not "it looks denigrating if you assume these five things"

2) Do not mix content disputes with behavioral disputes about COI. Do one or the other. This is really important on a bunch of levels.

• There is actually no bar in policy to someone directly editing content where they have a COI. They can directly edit.
• So you cannot remove content based on an apparent or even disclosed COI of an editor who put it there. If the content complies with VERIFY, OR, NPOV, and NOT, and you remove it, you are the one violating WP policy, and you can be blocked for that. This is really important. You have to deal with content based on the content policies and guidelines.
• Any time you bring an action against another editor, is really important that your own hands are clean, and that the issue is clear and easy to understand. The reasons for that are many and I can explain them later. But to be brief it is really hard for the other editor to hear you on the COI stuff if you have been disputing content with them, and it is really hard for the community to focus on the issue you want them to, if you have done bad things (like removing well sourced content or personally attacking the other editor)
• WP:COI is a guideline, not a policy. The best way to get it it work is to persuade people to follow it. Enforcing it is ... difficult at best, especially due to OUTING but also because it is just a guideline. This is why it is important that the editor about whom you are concerned takes you seriously. If you have been arguing about content with them, in any kind of ugly way, they will not be able to hear you.

3) As i told you at COIN, if you want to bring a COIN case, it is really important that you brings diffs that clearly show bias. You don't need a lot of commentary or Big Dramatic Headers like "opening" and "closing". Take some time and read the cases currently on the COIN board and in the archives. Read a lot of them. This is really the best way to learn. See what kind of issues are presented, and pay attention to how they are presented. The best cases are brief, undramatic, plenty of difs, each of which show clear bias, and together show a pattern of biased editing. What everyone here cares about is the actual content of the encyclopedia, and if there is a clear pattern of biased editing people will care.

4) More generally, COI is a contentious issue in Wikipedia. There are people who absolutely don't care about it, because it is about the person, not the content and part of the very core of this place is that we care about content, not contributors. (and they are correct about that underlying core principle) In their view, if somebody from a company adds well-sourced neutral content about their company to Wikipedia, they have actually improved Wikipedia (and they are right). Where the clash comes in, is that some of those folks look to push back efforts to better manage COI, and clumsy efforts to deal with COI - like yours - actually give them ammunition to argue with, saying that the effort harms the community and just ends up being personal attacks. So it is really important that people who work on COI issues are careful and focus on actual biased edits - not some idea and not speculations. So please be more careful going forward.

Does all that make sense? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This is some good insight. It is gonna take me some time to reflect on it. Thank you for the guidance. Sincerely,

Wasickta (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Medical definition of death for deletion

Hi Jytdog. I've nominated the Medical definition of death article for deletion. The article started out with the title Legal death, and the lede still reflects that meaning, but the article drifted so far off topic that somebody renamed it and created the proper Legal death article that exists today. As it is now, I don't even know what the Medical definition of death article is supposed to be about because the lede doesn't even define what "Medical definition of death" means apart from legal death, which already has its own article. Please comment when able. Thanks. Cryobiologist (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I saw that, and read it, and have been thinking about it. Interesting. Thanks for reaching out. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Draft:Tonix Pharmaceuticals‎

Am I mistaken in thinking that if a PR company involved in paid editing has been banned from WP that ban should also apply to the company's employees and agents too? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I would reckon. I am not aware of that bigger story; the prior account was indeffed for a username violation, is all I know. Has JT Communications been indeffed? If so this would be block evasion/SOCKING. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, my AFC review a while ago is the first time I've come across this issue. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, then there is no issue. Opening a new properly named account is an OK response to having your account blocked for a username violation. It is pretty clear that the person is violating the Terms of Use but that is a different issue. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense, a username violation is a "technicality" not as serious as a getting blocked for spamming or a TOU violation (which might be next!). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi I am new to the Wonderful World of Wiki and want to do everything correctly, but I am confused. I rebuilt the Draft:Tonix Pharmaceuticals page being careful not to be promotional, or in any way non-factual. I built the page in the same manner as many other pages that provide information on companies are built , so I don't understand why I was flagged? I will correct the permission issue regarding the logo, but otherwise the information is truthful, sourced and doesn't seem to violate any guidelines. thanks for your isight in helping me, the novice.. User:Barryfc101 Barryfc101 (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note Barry! I left you two messages on your Talk page yesterday hoping to start a discussion with you - please reply there and in the course of that discussion, we can discuss the problems with the content - they are clear and the decline of your draft was correct. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Lumacaftor/ivacaftor

Now I'm confused. Why is Orkambi approved for F508del mutation when ivacaftor seems to target G551D? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi ἀνυπόδητος the indications for which drugs are approved, depends 100% on what the company that develops the drug does. The decisions the company makes are based on what the drug can do (it mechanism), what makes sense in terms of the medical need, and of course, where the market is (which is related to the medical need)

So... The two drugs have different mechanisms of action. Ivacaftor helps CFTR channels that are already on the cell surface work better. Lumacaftor helps newly made CFTR, still deep in the guts of the cell, fold better. (if proteins are misfolded when they are made, the cell has mechanisms to quickly destroy them, and they usually never make it to the cell surface to do their job).

CFTR proteins with the G551D mutation make it to the cell surface OK but they just don't work well once they get there. Ivacaftor is great for that and Lumacaftor apparently isn't needed. (You never want to give a person a drug they don't need, as every drug has side effects). So vertex designed the clinical trials to include people with that mutation and that is the kind of patient they have data for, and that is what their FDA approval is for.

CFTR proteins with the F508del mutation tend to get destroyed quickly due to misfolding, and they don't work well even if they make it there. So the drug combination helps with both issues. So vertex designed the clinical trials to include people with that mutation and that is the kind of patient they have data for, and that is what their FDA approval is for.

Does that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That sounds as it is more of a organisational thing than a medical one. Theoretically, lumacaftor alone would help patients with F508del but intact G551, but the developer decided to include ivacaftor in the study treatment because so they could build on existing data. Is that ±right? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

At a high level yes - the FDA can only approve something based on the data brought to them.

Yes vertex could have gone for lumacaftor alone for F508del. I looked at this more closely, looking at the clinical trial data in the label. Vertex actually tried lumacaftor in a small, early trial. They tried doses of 200 mg once daily, 400 mg once daily, 600 mg once daily, and 400 mg 2x a day, and changes in lung function from from Day 1 at Day 28 icompared to placebo were 0.24, -1.4, -2.7, and -4.6 , respectively. Wow! They had built in adding ivacaftor 250 mg 2x day, starting at 28 days, and when they did that, the changes from Day 1 at Day 56 in ppFEV1 compared to placebo were 3.8, 2.7, 5.6, and 4.2, respectively. So IF that small initial study was correct, lumacaftor alone makes lung function worse in people with these mutation. Drug development is crazy. Jytdog (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Tetrahydrocannabinol

(facebook is not a reliable source it's host wich can host relible sources. facebook is not to be considered a source a source is the person signing the article or in other way's contributing the content and beeing identified as the contributer of the content. you can find reliable sources on facebook and the same people in university libraries. Thus facebook can contain reliable sources. Ulfarf (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I've concluded that some of your reverts are vandalism. And your resoning does not make sens. Ulfarf (talk) 06:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hm. No, facebook is not reliable for much of anything in WP and especially not for biomedical information; I've replied to you at the Talk page in any case, and that is where we should discuss this. Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I only use verifiable data in my entries. I do not edit war(sombody reverted while I was editing). I make edits i'm quite sure are right and have been established as facts through multiple sources. I use the talk pages mostly. since you claime facebook is not a good host wich host's are sutable for WP? You can rely on hosted content on Facebook if it contains reliable sources. The data can be deleted by a user but data can be deleted from any host. Ulfarf (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I have already pointed you to WP:MEDRS, please read it. If you don't understand it, please ask. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

it's a FACT ... THC causes apoptosis in cancer cells

Read untill you are convinced. here are reliable sources stating THC causes apoptosis in cancer cells https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=da&as_sdt=0,5&q=thc+cancer+cells+apoptosis https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%2Bthc+cancer+cells+apoptosis&btnG=&hl=da&as_sdt=0%2C5 And then correct the cancer section of the cannabis & THC article. Ulfarf (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I already replied to this on the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Rapastinel

I have reported reference 8 and your name to the appropriate governmental agencies. You may want to reconsider who and what you are associated with. For now, I will let the reference remain for further investigation. Govern yourself accordingly. Jeff1938 (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Oy. Please explain what your issue is at Talk:Rapastinel‎. Your edit note makes no sense and removing the whole reference section is not an option here. Just explain what the issue is. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

There were N authors on the source and N+1 on the reference in the Wikipedia article. The "extra" author has been removed from the citation for reference #8. —C.Fred (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

That is a new one. Was wrong from the day it was added here. Nice catch and thanks for resolving it. Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Intranasal drug delivery

Hello Jytdog: I would like to disagree with your revision of the section on “Intranasal drug delivery” on the Glioblastoma multiforme page on May 7, 2016. I would like to revert your revision, but at the same time want to avoid back-and-forth editing. Perhaps we can agree beforehand?

The reason you stated for your revision was “we don’t know if it works yet or not.” What is the evidence for your position? In support of my view that intranasal perillyl alcohol does work, there are three peer-reviewed studies that report results from phase I/II trials in Brazil, where perillyl alcohol was given intranasally to patients with malignant glioma, resulting in increased survival of patients. As well, there are several secondary references (review articles) that refer to those results without questioning them, but rather finding them quite positive and encouraging. So, why do you disagree?

Also, you state “a small study”. Perhaps you know that malignant glioma is a rare (orphan) disease. Including several hundred patients, as the Brazil studies did, is quite an achievement and by no means a small study, in particular in view of their phase I/II status.

Looking forward to your feedback. Hopefully, we can find some agreement. P.S.: I think it would be beneficial for the readership to include reference to the US clinical trial (intranasal perillyl alcohol for GBM) currently going on. What do you think? Ossky (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd be happy to reply on the article Talk page - please just copy your remark there, and i'll respond there. it is better to raise these things there, where everyone who cares can join. Jytdog (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Side note related to SUD thread on WT:MED

You obviously figured this out, but I didn't realize until just now that yesterday I pinged CFCF on WT:MED by mistake when I was responding to something that you had said (about the influx of editors). I just replaced your username with CFCF's in my original comment, so I'm leaving this note here to explain why you may have gotten a ping just now about a day-old comment. And also to explain to CFCF that I accidentally tagged him yesterday. I'll just leave my reply here too to your comment from yesterday (" I had no idea that Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs even existed...") since the conversation on that thread has long moved on and this is kind of a tangent anyway... You and me both... Apparently it's on my watchlist though. :) A few months ago I was trying to follow all of the SUD related articles, so I guess I came across that wikiproject, followed it, and immediately forgot about it. It must not have been very active before. There's also WP:Cannabis. I think those are all of the substance related wikiprojects that I've come across. PermStrump(talk) 17:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Mailman

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

KDS4444 (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

COIN

You should not have posted this (or anything else) on Doors' talk page. I have closed the COIN. Doors22 has agreed not to engage in direct article editing. You said that, if he were to agree to this, you would walk away from the article, so the assumption now is that you will honour that. Doc James is going to look out for any edit requests from Doors; he and Doors get along, so that will sort out the dispute on that page. In addition you and Doors should not post on each other's talk pages. This will end the long-standing dispute between you, so please respect it. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes what you linked to is my reversion; I know I shouldn't have posted it. The behavioral outcome is fine, with Doors limiting himself to the Talk page. However your close did not reflect the consensus at COIN that Doors has a COI. Your failure to represent that in your close is problematic as Doors is now denying his COI which leaves things open for trouble down the road. Your close is not sustainable.

Please amend your close to reflect the consensus at the COIN thread that Doors has a COI. That was established; it is all I am asking.

Further, I understand how you play Wiki-politics, Sarah. You are inaccurately framing this as a personal dispute between Doors and me. It is not. If you look at the support and oppose !votes at the ANI here you will see all the mainstream WP:MED editors and at least two admins who supported the TBAN and you will see that it was the usual alt-med gang that opposed. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The behavioral aspect of the close, btw, reflects the position you took at the ANI when i was seeking a full TBAN. It is the appropriate behavioral outcome for a COIN case; we just need the declaration of the COI as well. Otherwise there is really no basis for the behavioral agreement. It needs a basis and the basis is there. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

As a talk page stalker, my attention was raised by your reply to SlimVirgin, in light of my own long-ago experiences. So I just spent an inappropriately long amount of time looking into the background leading up to this. I agree with one point you made earlier, that she was previously unfair to you in saying that you seem to have a pro-industry bias because you invoke MEDRS on some pages more than on others. You are right to object to that characterization. (And the premature close of the earlier ANI by someone else was a bad close.) But, otherwise, I want to give you good-faith advice to dial it down, not unlike when you recently retracted something where you had misread something that I wrote. I get your point, that the COIN close should have stated explicitly that there was a COI, and strictly speaking, that is true. But I think that SV is quite reasonably trying to get editors past this conflict, and prioritizing that higher than spelling out the COI. And I think that's a good thing, because restoring peace is more important that achieving "justice" – and practically, the result is successful in that it restricts the other editor to the article talk page, with advice to make comments brief and clear. That's really all you needed. I know that the other editor talked trash about you, and SV did not explicitly rebut that. But she didn't agree with it either, and you don't need validation or setting the record straight. People say nonsense about other editors all the time. Let it go. And about your self-reverted edit on the other editor's talk, which was the first reason for SV's post here, you were wrong much as you were when you misread something I had written. SV wasn't saying that the dispute was between her and the other editor. She was saying that the agreement that the other editor would abide by the restriction was between that editor and her – and that it was not something where your making an edit would give the other editor a get-out-of-jail-for-free card! It wasn't disparaging your concerns. It was, quite appropriately, making things clear to the other editor. You don't need to obtain ultimate justice here. And you won't get it if you try. Please let it go. If the other editor abuses the talk page restriction, I'm pretty sure the community will deal with it. And if they don't abuse it, you should declare victory and move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look through the background and to provide your usual thoughtful reply. I very much disagree with you characterizing me as seeking "victory". Key thing here is that I was looking for community determination and decision (not anything between Doors and me or dependent on me). SV making it a deal between him and her is not appropriate and effectively shelters him. If you look at the ANI I linked to above, while I and the other mainstream editors called Doors' editing clearly disruptive, SV wrote "A topic ban would deprive Wikipedia of the information you have, and you're obviously well-informed," which was complete bullshit. Doors has no "special information" that is not available to others; and any time the PFSF puts something out we get a few editors bringing it to the article. Doors is not the only one; he is just the one who persists and will not stop. His contribs are the paradigm of advocacy-editing in WP.

I have a lot of diffs I can bring that show SV doing exactly this kind of thing to shelter disruptive editors pushing FRINGEy views on health topics and who couple that POV-pushing with the "pharma shill gambit", like Doors does. There is no other admin in Wikipedia that I know of who acts this way.

It was both unwise and unnecessary for her to choose to step into this particular discussion. Yet she did.

Like I said I am debating my next steps. I can make a very strong case here. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm with you about "special information" and the ever-popular "shill gambit". I agree with you entirely about those things. As for "victory", I of course cannot read anyone's mind, so your say-so is good enough for me – but you may find it useful to know that it looks that way to observers. Something to think about, much like Javert and all those previous conversations. But I really think that you misunderstand something about the "deal". I don't think that it was constructed so that SV could shelter him or help him get out of the deal. I sincerely think that her intent was that he should not be able to point to something you might do in the future, and say that if Jytdog could do that, then I can go back to making COI edits on the page. We both know that he would like to pull that loophole. What SV did, and I agree with her, is tell him that he is responsible for not backing out of the "deal", regardless of anything you might or might not do. That's a good thing, and it's very different from what you have construed it as. One fish's advice about your "next step": let it pass unless either the other editor violates the "deal" or unless the admin takes actions against you. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, talking about "observers", there is a thread about you at the website-that-dare-not-speak-its-name. Not that I'm endorsing any of the opinions there, but just in case you don't know about it, you might as well be aware, with popcorn. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

SV is very skilled at WP noticeboard politics. SV sought to shelter him from the TBAN at the ANI; her intervention at COIN implemented the outcome for which she advocated at the ANI. Doors was self-destructing at the COIN thread and what she did at COIN was very clearly intervening before ROPE became an issue - it was a sheltering intervention. It is obvious, in light of her past behavior. I also find her framing this as an interpersonal dispute between Doors and me to be... foul. This is also the kind of thing she does to shelter bad actors here. She included that in her close too, which again is very savvy/sneaky as it becomes citable later. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

In so many ways, you are preaching to the converted. I've had quite a history there, before you even started editing. But escalating is also citable later. Play nice, until such time as, hypothetically, the "deal" gets broken. You don't want to make it easy to paint you as "the angry editor". You want to be the nice guy who accepts stuff and moves on, and then is so very disappointed when other people do not live up to what was asked of them. (It's like that nonexistent person that Drmies told you about, who did not say "Jytdog needs to calm the fuck down".) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I hear you on all that. All that is why I didn't file the AN right away and am still thinking.  :) Thank you very much. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Consanguinity

Hello. You really should have discussed this issue with me, rather than re-reverting. You've been around long enough to know better. I find that I agree with you concerning use of primary research in a (quasi-) medical article, though this was not an egregious case, and would probably have reverted my own edits, given the opportunity.

I'm inclined, however, to disagree with your characterization of the references in question as spam. WP:SELFCITE advises,

Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive.

Mfareedk posted the references using his (I presume) own name, thereby disclosing his conflict of interests. (Disclosure generally vitiates a conflict of interest, absent evidence of corruption.) The citations are, as far as I can tell, to reputable, peer-reviewed journals, not self-published blogs or open forums. The text relying on those references was relevant, conformable to content policies, and not excessive. It was not outlandish, scandalous, or tendentious, but seemed to be in keeping with scientific consensus (to the extent that I'm aware of it) regarding the effects of inbreeding. If the sources were not primary research, I'd have said Mfareedk's edits should stand. Do you disagree?

I would also respectfully suggest that, instead of deleting his edits and chiding Mfareedk about self-promotion, a better, and more Wikipedian, response would have been to discuss the matter with him, and to encourage him to find secondary sources to support his factual assertions, so that his own research could stand as illustrations, rather than the principal bases, for his assertions in the text.

Unwarranted self-promotion on Wikipedia annoys me at least as much as it does you, and there is far too much of it. (It seems every song or album recorded in the last twenty years, and every band that has ever played two gigs, has a Wikipedia article!). But not all self-promotion is unwarranted, even if it's perhaps a little unseemly. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Have dealt with lots of (too many) academics who come to Wikipedia for one reason only, and that is to promote themselves. This person had already edit warred their stuff back into articles and refused to talk; my warning on their talk page was letting them know that they what they are doing is seriously wrong and can lead to them being blocked.

If you really think that the sources Mfareedk brought and the content they generated to have an excuse to cite themselves are really optimal for that article by all means feel free to restore; then you own it. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Alternative for Germany

I removed the |rfcid= from the {{rfc}} because unless that is done, Legobot will not remove the RfC from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted (like this), although it will correctly add it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law (like this). --Redrose64 (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

thanks for explaining! Jytdog (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Vaxxed Drama

Your input would be appreciated Here. Thanks. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I de-archived a section you manually archived. It was just a few days old and while it started out useless, I think it might turn into something that would be useful to point new editors to the page to as an example of why we aren't giving Wakefield more authority, and why we're using Gorski. That's assuming the conversation continues, of course. If it doesn't get any more replies for a few more days, go ahead and revert me, and don't worry about preserving my new response.

I just wanted to give you an explanation and say that while I've reverted you a few times lately (I think 3 times in the past month or two), it was always for the reasons I gave. You're one of the better editors here, IMHO. I certainly hope I haven't offended you at all, and I want you to feel free to yell at me on my talk page if I do. :) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I saw that. Nope, no offense. I was trying to minimize the opportunities for soapboxing.... on both sides. :) and thanks for your kind words Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion about Gorski would have lead to a soapbox battle inappropriate to that page. However, the question as to whether or not Wakefield is an anti-vaxxer (as ridiculous a question as that is), if followed through, might turn into a great FAQ-style thread. Something we could link to the next time a new editor comes along suggesting Wakefield is a neutral source. That being said, I'd bet money it won't go anywhere, which is a bit of a shame, really. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

PS: You're welcome for the kind words. I really meant them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Racoch

Hi Jytdog, I saw this comment before you deleted it. I actually think it's very valuable for you to say something along these lines (though it might be possible to rephrase in somewhat more diplomatic tones). It's good to know that you are following this story, but I think it's even better if there's a visible record that uninvolved Wikipedians care about the process followed by companies like this -- especially when they include longtime Wikipedians and people in positions of trust in our ecosystem. -Pete (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

OK. Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit on Oxcarbazepine

Thank you for the edit and for including in your summary a reference to WP:MEDRS which led me to Secondary source. Now I understand why secondary sources should be cited.--Akhooha (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

great! Thanks for your note. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent sources (re:Homosexuality#Genetics)

I understand your zeal, but and older reference is fine as long as it demonstrates a point. That's why people still cite Watson & Crick (1953). This quote was primarily about the demographics, which is unlikely to change. Unless you can prove it using more recent quotes, of course. I will reinsert that citation, because an older reference is certainly better than no reference at all. Peteruetz (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Happy to discuss content on the article's talk page. More generally, science moves; please don't cite 20 year old primary sources in Wikipedia unless it is something as settled as the existence of DNA. And even then something like the Watson Crick paper should only be cited for historical interest. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I hope you do read what you quote. The new reference does NOT have the information about twins that is described on the Wikipedia page. But thanks for the update. I am fed up and will stop editing for now. Please read the papers you quote before quoting. Peteruetz (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I needed to update the content based on the better source and have now done so. That is a good point. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

NEWER does NOT mean BETTER. By the way, you deleted important statistical data, which is still valid, no matter how old it is. Sorry to say that, but because of zealous people like you a lot of editors give up in frustration. See further comments on my talk page. Thanks. Peteruetz (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

With matters related to health a recent review is always much better than an older primary study. If you want to discuss details of this article, please open a thread at the article talk page so others can join. I am happy to discuss. Are you? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Far too late

Most of the Western world is asleep. Just saying. Being critical of my own insomnia. FeatherPluma (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I am up late working on stuff and minding WP in gaps. yes, very late!  :) Jytdog (talk) 06:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Quintiles

Hi Jytdog, looking for some guidance. It looks like an editor, Zefr, is displaying some WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour at the above article. I've attempted to edit the article early this month, Zefr immediately reverts. Looking at the history of the article, anyone who contributes to it who is not Zefr is reverted. I've looked on their TP, any prior notifications of edit warring/disruption etc are immediately blanked off. How do we deal with behaviour like this? XyZAn (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Just work it out on the talk page. Good people can disagree and the key thing is to just talk it out in actually good faith discussions. just make sure you bring really high quality sources to the table and i am sure it will go fine. good luck! Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Sarah Ballard AfD

I happened on this AfD when leaving a talk page note for another editor. I saw you're collapsing discussion of !votes, but the discussions don't appear to be off-topic or disruptive (the reasons for hatting given in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). This hatting gives the impression of closing down debate - we get to consensus by discussion, clarification, and possibly even changing minds, not by voting in isolation. Characterising all the discussion in that AfD as "bickering" is not fair. Would you change the summaries from "bickering" to a less pejorative term, and consider uncollapsing some of the more constructive and less repetitive discussion? Thanks. Fences&Windows 12:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking so nicely. You have a different notion of civil discussion and of WP:BLUDGEON than I do - the behavior there was terrible. But I will just remove the hats rather than fuss. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. Fences&Windows 22:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Alvyray

Hi, I see you removed the userbox I had placed on Alvy Ray's userpage. Fair enough. I had placed it there partly to see how the tag worked and to get it working correctly, which I now think it does, and partly as a favor to Mr. Smith to allow him to disclose his COIs in a standardized format. I did not intend for it to be problematic or a cause for conflict or concern, and would like to know if it has somehow become one. It is my hope that this new template, {{UserboxCOI}}, will become a convenient way for editors to disclose conflicts of interest instead of having to come up with a novel sentence saying so each time a COI is identified. The only thing I changed about Mr. Smith's userpage this evening was to update it for the template's new functionality of being able to identify multiple articles with which a user might have a COI (which Mr. Smith open stated that he had). But it is his userpage to mess with, not mine, and I only hope this change did not cause him any grief. I do not anticipate making any additional changes to the template in the future. My apologies for having tested it here. KDS4444 (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I had asked him to disclose on his userpage, and he voluntarily did so. Following that with a redundant userbox on your own could be taken by him as bludgeoning and as you know, generally nobody touches other people's Userpages. I know you have the right to place the OTRS box; that was fine. Thanks for being understanding. Jytdog (talk) 08:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

CBD research for schizophrenia

Hello Jytdog, Thank you again for the terrific coaching material you gave me a while back. You took a lot of time to help me.

My son is schizophrenic. Charlotte's Web Hemp Extract knocks down the negative symptoms significantly. Here's info about CBD and schizophrenia.

Dr. Daniele Piomelli at the University of California at Irvine. I met with him personally for an hour discussing his work: Cannabidiol enhances anandamide signaling and alleviates psychotic symptoms of schizophrenia. http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v2/n3/full/tp201215a.html (full article) This study is cited here: TIME Magazine article about the study:

Schizophr Res. 2015 Mar;162(1-3):153-61. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2015.01.033. Epub 2015 Feb 7. A systematic review of the antipsychotic properties of cannabidiol in humans.

Curr Pharm Des. 2012;18(32):5131-40. A critical review of the antipsychotic effects of cannabidiol: 30 years of a translational investigation.

CBD can be a safe and well-tolerated alternative treatment for schizophrenia.

Studies suggest that cannabinoids such as CBD and SR141716 have a pharmacological profile similar to that of atypical antipsychotic drugs. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2010 Mar;11(2 Pt 2):208-19. doi: 10.3109/15622970801908047. Potential antipsychotic properties of central cannabinoid (CB1) receptor antagonists.

2013 Evidence suggests that CBD can ameliorate positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia.

1,511 PubMed studies on cannabidiol:

Thank you,

References

Listenforgood (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

you are welcome!

i am sorry about your son.

this is the relevant pubmed search for working in Wikipedia. It shows 31 reviews.

above, yon't mention PMID 26852073 which is the most recent review. Leweke is the 1st author. It says: "Currently available data on the acute antipsychotic effects of cannabidiol in schizophrenia are still limited with promising initial results. Yet there is a consistent signal pointing to a preferable side-effect profile of cannabidiol. Unfortunately, current trials are limited to 6 weeks of treatment at maximum. No information on long-term efficacy and tolerability is available yet. To prove the safety and efficacy of cannabidiol in schizophrenia, large-scale clinical trials both in the acute treatment, as well as in the maintenance phase, for 6 months or even longer are needed." That's really the only source you need. I can send it to you, if you want it.

not sure what you want of me, exactly. Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I am humbly thrilled with the info you shared. I've just gained a new understanding about the huge range of information you have at your reach. Thank you for the relevant PubMed search info. I just basically wanted to share some references... but I think you're more cutting edge than I am!  :)

Thank you for your concern about my son. Even since you responded here, he's improved with 750mg/day CBD (which is close to Piomelli's dosage in the 2012 study with Leweke). Having been through six 5150s (four became 5250s) in 4 1/2 years, his condition is presently in a much better phase.

Thank you for pointing me to the new Leweke Study. I would love to have it - if there's something conveniently more than this I found: It's very kind of you to offer to send it to me, but I know your time is limited, so only at your convenience. I posted a slight re-write (on Cannabidiol) of the paragraph you cited. I hope that's ok! Oops, is that a primary source?

I also posted this on the Cannabidiol page (Research):

OPTiMiSE is a large (February 2010 - January 2016) health project sponsored by a consortium of 18 European Psychiatric Institutes testing the potential use of cannabidiol for treating schizophrenia. Are "studies-in-progress" not good sources? Should Conclusions must be published before posting on Wikipedia?

Question: I get it about primary sources. Is this TIME Magazine article reputable enough as a (?) secondary source that could be included about CBD?

What do I want? Gosh, you've been guiding me with tips and tools as I begin to understand how to do editing here in a proper fashion. That's perfect! Thanks a million!

References

Listenforgood (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! Good news about your son; hoping that holds. If you want to email me at jytdog @ gmail.com I can send you the Leweke review (PMID 26852073). It is a review (a secondary source published in the biomedical literature) so is a very good source for supporting content about health (what we call WP:Biomedical content), per WP:MEDRS. Time is popular media so is not OK for health content, but could be useful for stuff that goes in the "society and culture stuff" section - see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Popular_press. Jytdog (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

There was no

…freaking out, as you call it, at my Talk page, just a response to a continuing threat, there, to sanction me despite the ANI being archived. (The matter with Drmies was my ignorance of how to address the concern, and his impatience with my technical incompetence.) As for the frequency of my attendance, that is my call, and I admit, I have, in a new leaf, paid very little if any attention to politics and discussion here. I have found it to be completely useless, wasted time, with a few rare exceptions, yourself, and Liz, being some exceptional editors to whom I will attend.

Otherwise, I thank you for your continued evenhandedness/fairness in matters, despite your dislike. It is honourable, and I invite your continued comment on any matters you wish pertaining to me. We will no doubt continue to disagree (e.g., on the practical need for and ease of maintenance. and so value of cladograms as business images), but I respect you nonetheless, and am fine that I alone feel this between us. On the tagging matter, I have (i) indeed taken "to heart" the feedback, (ii) invited further feedback at my Talk page, but even so, will continue to try to improve articles, starting with sourcing issues (the sole source of our credibility, by Mr Wales et al's original design). And so this means—per policy, and depending on article status quo—that articles, and or sections, and/or sentences, will still receive tags, as issues demand.

Otherwise, hope all is well with you and yours. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I do wish you well. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

And note, I would take the initiative to do an article on any discovery company, in any therapeutic area, if the startup is noteworthy, and if sufficient sources exist (because the business pages are generally poor sources of truly encyclopedic perspective on such entities). I understand your reticence; I am involved with three ventures, but would never write about them or disclose them myself either (though all are still under radar, and so impossible to write about, yet, encyclopedically). But I do not know a way for either of us to communicate such personal interests, without being "outed" unhelpfully. (I may have shared that an earlier editor who took umbrage with my content editing, researched and discovered my University, and was near to naming me as a faculty member at that place, when I withdrew from that editing and login.) If you know of a direct manner to interact that is trustworthy, to relate "articles I wish someone would write about", please let me know it, somehow. And feel free to remove this last entry of mine. Your closing wish is a nice enough way to end today's interaction. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Completely wrong

In this edit you removed some text that you claim was completely wrong. What was wrong about "Wikipedia works because of the efforts of volunteers like you and their bold edits to assist us in building this encyclopedia project. Fixing problems and then removing maintenance templates when you're done is important in that effort."? Debresser (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd be happy to discuss that at the Talk page! Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Then please do so. :) Debresser (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

I have reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for edit warring and false accusations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betaman12 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I suppose I shouldn't giggle out loud as I did at the result of this - David Gerard (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was watching this, and it was rather awful. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

No ill was intended

…by the move of the comments. I will see what the issue was for you—how the change of location changed the meaning of the Talk comment—but if you wish to clarify this, here, for sake of my understanding. Otherwise, my understanding is that my Talk page is the one venue where I do have control, and so it is critical to me that I understand what the core issue was (rather than being told what not to do at my Talk page!). Thanks in response for your reply. I very much want to understand how I misrepresented you by the simple, apolitical, impersonal, merely "administrative" move of text. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You can remove comments from your talk page, but you cannot change them or change their contexts. Keep it, archive it, remove it. That's it. Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This does not address what misconstruing of your words I created by moving it—what was the emotional substance of the issue? OK, I violated what appears to be a sacrosanct principle at WP, regarding User Talk page maintenance. But why so heated in reply? How did I injure? This is what is important to me… Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Templates for you

I think you'll want to know about these two templates. The second one, in particular, is probably underutilized. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

"Advertisements masquerading as articles" is a brilliant phrase. Thanks for that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

i wish i could claim credit but it is a section title in WP:SPAM and it was actually 009o9 who pointed me to SPAM on the Talk page. The phrase was added to SPAM here in 2004 (!) by User:MartinHarper who seems to have become inactive just last year. All credit to him. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom case request

A request for arbitration has been declined as premature at this time. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)