User talk:Jytdog/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 29

Advice

Hi,

We recently talked on my talk page. So I started editing other pages and I would appreciate your opinion on how I'm doing. I've noticed IPFire page had many unnecessary sections and marketing materials. I've made some changes. Can you confirm this is acceptable? I'm not sure if addons section should be there either. Thanks.--Mr.hmm (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Why would you mark IPFire page for speedy deletion after I reach out to you for advice? You undo my edits, re-do same changes and then mark the page for speedy deletion? Why? --Mr.hmm (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

My advice is that it should be speedy deleted. Your edits were good at removing some of the bad and I appreciate you doing that and calling my attention to the page. I went to clean it up more and there was nothing left. This happens sometimes. When that happens I go back to the state of the article before the clean up and speedy it. (I reverted my removals and yours - our edits were the same in my view). If you had rewritten the page to make it a WP article, sourced to high quality, independent sources, I would not (and could not) have done that.

Let's see if it gets speedied. If it gets speedied and you want to take a stab at writing a new version, you can start it at Draft:IPFire. If the speedy is declined, you can work on it, where it is now. It does need a complete rewrite.Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree, it needs complete rewrite. Sounds like a a plan. Thanks--Mr.hmm (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jytdog. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Party at Conduct of Mister Wiki editors arbitration case

Hi Jytdog, the Arbitration Committee has directed that you be added as a party to the Conduct of Mister Wiki editors arbitration case. This is not a finding of wrongdoing. Please submit any evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence by 15 December 2017; as a party, you are allowed 1000 words and 100 diffs. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, so I will restore some stuff. Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

What's going on?

I'm not sure why I was linked in that Arbcom case, but generally it's courtesy to notify someone when you do. In any case, that hounding on my talk page was done by four editors, not the community. The community's lack of response to their hounding may say something, but the WP:AN thread I opened did not support their arguments. Other than that, what's going on with Salv?--v/r - TP 04:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

User:TParis Hey sorry about that. I was rehearsing the history of people with advanced privileges/admins and paid editing, and originally was going to cite what happened with you as someone who did something very like paid editing (writing an article for pay that someone else posted), but not extensively and with no apparent abuse of tools, and who has not been desysopped. I also noted that you have been treated very badly. I removed that due to word limits.

What is going on with Sal, is that he, pretty unreflectively, started editing for pay, created an alt "paid" account and gave it advanced permissions (like page mover), and used those permissions for his client. He also coordinated off-WP with another editor, who was working for the same outfit, to draftify then hop two pages through AfC as a strategy to get N tags removed from them, and then cited the corrupt AfC multiple times. And cited his integrity. Wasn't at all thinking clearly. Thought he was above COI. That all got brought to light in the big closed section above, if you scroll up. I think the lights went on some by the end of that.

And I made a timeline of it here. It was only a three week period.

But then at COIN a bunch of people wanted him to resign the bit and go up for RfA again (this is influenced in part by his disastrous -- and also careless - RfB in the summer.) And he refused to do that and instead was pretty defiant, here, clinging to his bit and his own judgement, instead of letting the community tell him if it still trusts him. I had been asking everybody to hold off at COIN and let him think, but after he posted that, an hour later the Arbcom case was filed, and I can only support it. All this drama over making a few bucks, and his desire to keep the bit.

The broader context is that we just indeffed an editor who had NPP and autopatrol rights who was editing for pay (he gave those up voluntarily) but who also was an OTRS volunteer, who was actually soliciting people who had emailed asking for help.

There is a big thread at VPP arising from that mess.

So paid editing and advanced privileges are kind of "hot" right now. Sal picked a bad time to use crappy judgement with the tools and then to be defiant about keeping the bit.

If he had actually surrendered the bit and gone up for RfA, I would not have had an easy !vote there. Jytdog (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC) (re-sign for ping in case not watching Jytdog (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC))

I see. This is quite a storm brewing. I have more comments, but I'm in a rush. I might speak to Salv about the issue.--v/r - TP 13:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Brewed, but yes. It would be great if you would talk to Salv, and I look forward to your comments, where ever you put them. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

You can call me Ben or Salv

Although I'm used to people misspelling "Salvidrim", it seems like it's a significant obstacle and I wouldn't want silly typos to detract from the seriousness of the arguments you are bringing forward. You have my blessing to shorten it to Salv or Ben as others commonly do. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Les Mills International Page

Hi Jytdog,

My name is Brynn, yesterday I made changes to the LMI page for my boss and this morning when he went to check them the were changed and I saw that you had changed them due to the fact you thought they were spam. Can I ask why? I work for Les Mills and the sources for the change were both reputable (one of them in fact came straight from Phillip Mills himself). 203.29.87.142 (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Brynn. Thanks for your note. You have a conflict of interest and should not directly edit the article about the company you work for. Wikipedia articles are not social media and are not vehicles for promotion. The references you added are not what we call "reliable sources." If you would like to be involved in the article - suggesting changes but not editing it directly - please create an account and let me know, and I can teach you what you should do. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Gibmul and paid editing

Hi Jytdog. I am wondering if you would mind taking a look at the suggestions I have given to Gibmul in User talk:Gibmul#Paid editing, etc.. I I don't think Gibmul is really trying to hide anything, but some of their statements seem to indicate a possible misunderstanding about what a Wikipedia article is intended to be. For reference, I did start a thread at COIN about this, but so far no one has responded and I just want to make sure I am not giving this editor any bad information or advice. The editor seems to be making major revisions to articles like this and then posting a message on the article's talk page asking what others think, instead requesting the edit first on the talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Misophonia

Hiya! So, I had a question about a couple edits I made that you reverted. You obviously have a lot more experience than me in this area, so figured it'd be a good chance to ask. A while back, you reverted this citing that it was a primary source. Then recently you reverted the same content with secondary sourcing here saying that it's a "primary source + popular media". Which is a bit confusing since I can't see why HuffPo and Telegraph could be primary sources. I'm by no means questioning your judgement, but I guess I'm asking what would be a good source in this case? Anywho, any feedback would be appreciated and thanks in advance! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

This edit note that you cited said, in complete: "primary source + popular media. Please see WP:MEDREV". Did you see WP:MEDREV? Please let me know. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggesting changes For Les Mills International

Hi Jytdog, Brynn from les Mills here, I was just wonder what the process is to getting changes made to the Les Mills International page is. The reason for the changes are that the wiki page could be more accurate in terms of the create of the business, if you could assist me in the process that would be great — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegumnut (talk • contribs) 21:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, we will do this at your talk page, User talk:Thegumnut. See you there. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

AfD

Hi, and thanks for contributing to AfD. Just a note that at this deletion discussion, you struck out the entire commentary from a person who !voted multiple times. I have changed the edit to only strike out the duplicate "keep" !vote, and unstruck the commentary. This is because while multiple !votes are not allowed at AfD, multiple comments are. Thanks for keeping this in mind into the future. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate you fixing that, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

No problemo. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Feedback requested

A COI edit request has sparked a discussion on which your input is desired, at the Viking Cruises page. Thank you!  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  23:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest Edits to Calvin Cheng

I have taken your previous feedback about my edits and have refrained from doing any edits to this page. In fact, I have only reverted edits to your versions. I have looked at your edits and I appreciate you writing a neutral BLP. As a foreigner, you have no COI. However, it would be fair to also use the same measures with COI edits the other way with anti-establishment editors like Jane Dawson and Bukit Bintang? If pro estab Singaporean editors are not allowed to elaborate on the positive parts, why is Jane Dawson reducing the positive parts for WP:Undue and then elaborating on the negative parts? Thanks Historicalchild (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Shrilk

Dear Jytdog, Your vision on Shrilk might be confused. Shrilk was the first material able to reproduce the natural synergies of structural biomaterials artificially. Shrilk is referred, for example, to as “one of the materials that will change the future of manufacturing” (Scientific American), a “Supermaterial” (National Geographic), and has been chosen (with graphene) one of the “five material that could change the word” (The Guardian). I understand this is a topic you don't find important or relevant enough to have its own page, but it is to others. Definitely the redirecting to chitosan is not an enhance of the quality of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.24.77.60 (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes that is all hype. It is somewhat remarkable that your IP is from the university where the person who invented this works now.Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

How are you doing this is Jenna garnan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.38.88 (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Silent Siren edit request

Hi Jytog. Thank you for trying to help Gibmul. I'm not sure, however, if they completely grasped the advice you've gave avoid dense, lengthy requests after seeing the edit request they made on Talk:Silent Siren. I cleaned up the formatting a bit and was in the process of adding a comment explaing why, but there's was a ec by you and another editor. I added my comment anyway, but hopefully now it doesn't seem too redundant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep we'll see. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You have been reported

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Jytdog_Ban_breaking/request_of_Enforcement_and_further_actions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.193.226.178 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Article-subjects providing their own lead-images

Travis McHenry is in a league of his own, I think? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

at least he is following Uncle Ben's advice recently to raise awareness of climate change! Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The King and the Land are one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Winged scapula

Hello, Jytdog – I'm in the middle of copy-editing Elasmosaurus. I linked "processes" to Process (anatomy) in a piped link. Right after that there was a reference to the "necks" of the shoulder blades. I thought, since I had linked "processes", I might find an article or section of an article to which I could link "necks". I searched for "shoulder blades", and it led me to Scapulae. I saw a few references to "neck", which I might use. However, the reason I am writing this is because, in Scapula, in the Scapular fractures sub-section of Clinical significance, there is a black-and-white photo of the back of someone with a Winged scapula. The caption reads, "Example of a winged scapula". I was puzzled by this. I think non-experts would not know which scapula, the left one or the right one, was the winged scapula. I guess readers could eventually figure it out by reading the entire article on Winged scapula, but perhaps it would be helpful to indicate in the caption which of the two scapulae is the winged scapula. After glancing at the article on Winged scapula, I figured it was the one on the left, but when I first saw the photo, I had no idea which one was the winged scapula.

The photo also appears in Winged scapula, in the section Signs and symptoms. It appears below a color photo. The caption of the first photo reads, "winging of scapula". Besides needing a capital "w", perhaps this should read, "Winging of the right scapula", and the caption of the black-and-white photo should read, "Winging of the left scapula", or "A winged right scapula" for the first and "A winged left scapula" for the second. Just a suggestion.  – Corinne (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Peer Bork

Hi, Jytdog,

Thank you for your attention on my contribution/description to Peer Bork. The information I'd put in is true, mostly underlined/supported by the provided URL and also based on my knowledge so far. What I didn't understand is how/why you could just easily remove the entire paragraph for Peer Bork's research. There I'd spend extra time to figure it out on the google scholarship and set up the url for the reader's convenience. Your removal of the entire paragraph is really not justified as the research paragraph provides additional support to the first paragraph what was told about the person. Your judge was just based on a very simple linkage algorithm: one person - one contribution: then as doubtful! In some cases, this might help you to identify doubtful articles. But in this case: what is wrong on the content what I'd put in? If you'd point out what was wrong, then I'd correct it. If you're just keeping removing stuff from what I'd put in without a reasoning on the content, then I don't see how I'd continue to contribute anything meaningful.

I hope that you'd take a closer look at the entire article, then judge whether it's right and correct.

Thank you.

Best regards

An occacional writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StreamBird (talk • contribs) 21:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Please reply here, thanks. After that is done I would be happy to discuss article content, at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I moved your replies to your talk page. We all have "talk pages". This is mine. Yours is at User talk:StreamBird. Click on that link and read what is there, and please reply there. You can edit that page, just like you can edit this page, or an article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning - works both ways, colleague

Your recent editing history at pfSense shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Jesus christ you are adding incompetence to your advocacy - this kind of tit for tat tagging is newbie bullshit. If I give you an edit warning, of course I am aware of the policy. What has gotten into you today? Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Jesus, tag bombing of established users after a single revert is big ego bullshit, no? Aren't we a wee too heated by the subject, colleague? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I am pretty fed up with sloppy editing by advocates on these topics. Please read what I wrote at COIN in the thread linked at the AfD - my definition of hell in Wikipedia is subjects where there are online communities involved in X who come to WP and hijack WP pages and even fight out their pitiful rivalries here, all without giving a flying fuck about Wikipedia and what is best for the community. My sense is that you may have unintentionally stumbled into this shit hole but.... there you are. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

How is that I am acting like them? My rationale was spelled in the edit summary, and it was quite along with your own sentiment: the article is about a product and must describe the freaking product, and Wikipedia is not a platform for their owners' petty bickering. Staszek Lem (talk)

I understand from your strike at the deletion discussion that you are reviewing the history more. Please continue, and please see the history of both pages and the conversations I have had on the talk pages of almost everyone involved. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Your edit on American Heart Association talk page requesting a topic ran counter to NPOV

Your edit (deletion) on American Heart Association talk page requesting a topic that discusses AHA's robo-dialing campaigns, hung calls and harassing behavior ran counter to NPOV. If they are going to act like telmarketers and bill collectors then it should be discussed. Your desire to only put forth the positive information is disappointing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloader (talk • contribs) 16:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:TPG; that was abuse of the article Talk page to talk about the organization; it was not about changing article content. Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

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

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Your clearing of Buffalo General Medical Center and John R. Oishei Children's Hospital

I am curious as to why you made these two articles into redirects again. Are the not notable enough to stand on their own?

There are countless examples of hospital articles that are separate from their network articles, and with the COI issues at Kaleida Health anyway, now more than ever is the best time for them to have stand alone articles.

Trivial and intangible articles are added to Wikipedia consistently and on a regular basis, although I'm not condoning that by any means. I did have plans for these articles. I just want to know your reasoning for not letting it stand on its own. Thanks, Buffaboy ^talk 16:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe they can stand on their own. As they were, they were stubs, and Kaleida Health had no sourced content at all, really. This is a situation where it makes sense to combine things. If content about the hospitals gets so elaborate and bulky at the Kaleida article that the separate hospitals needs to be split, then of course a WP:SPLIT would make sense. But there is rarely that much to say about most hospitals. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, that's understandable. Buffaboy ^talk 16:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, glad that makes sense.  :) thanks for talking. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Replied to Your Post

Hi Jytdog! I responded to your post on my talk page and wanted to let you know since you haven't replied yet. I apologize if I'm not supposed to post here or something, but I wanted to make sure you knew I replied. Thanks! FredCrumbledge (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring at "David"

You know better. YoPienso (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

What would be useful would be if you would help the support the consensus language that we negotiated with difficulty. Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at GetResponse shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Kevdaren (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Please do see your talk page. It is now quite obvious that you are not new here and increasingly less likely that you have no connection with this company. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Heads up -- Barbara (WVS) and me

Just letting you know of this in case it starts up again. Her editing restrictions at the time involved you as well, but they mainly concerned me and I remember that you were extremely helpful during that time. You have no idea how much I appreciated that help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I've been debating how to reply to this. I appreciate the heads up. Barbara seems to be going through a somewhat combative phase which is unfortunate for everybody. She has an ornery streak that way. Please do what you can to allow the phase to pass but of course I understand that may not happen.

I do not play wiki-politics -- not ever. I just follow what I see as best for the community. In the original case of Barbara, her actions were terrible and this was clear to me and to others, and resulted in serious sanctions, and she has not only never acknowledged this but has done similar things on a lesser scale since then, which remains a point of concern for me.

But generally, you and I have disagreed before, perhaps as many times as we have agreed, and we surely will do both again. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Jason Rapert

You have removed two entries citing WP:NOTNEWS when they are both accepted knowledge with sourced news articles linked to them. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonBSnow (talk • contribs) 19:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Please post at the article talk page and I will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Why did you delete my Aphasia research section???

"Wikipedia is not an instruction manual." This was meant for me?? I didn't write any instructions about anything... I made edits that were very pertinent to Aphasia research and used data from a government website. In fact, I don't see how the page is complete without that section after its been there. What possibly could have been the reason for removing that very useful information?

And then: "please also see WP:MEDMOS to learn how we write about health in Wikipedia." I've gone through that entire page. The common pitfalls, writing style... I have no clue why you referred me to it. It doesn't even apply to anything I wrote. "This page delineates style guidelines for editing medical articles."

Can I please put that stuff back on the page or are you just gonna take it down again? If you are, please tell me what was wrong with it instead of just leaving a vague comment and removing perfectly good information that definitely belongs on an encyclopedia page about Aphasia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5503:7C00:8083:C8E7:10F0:8C9D (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Please post at the article talk page and I will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Your conflict of interest

You work for the pharmaceutical industry so you have a conflict of interest. That is the truth. Sorry if you cannot handle it, regardless of whether or not we are involved in an edit war. Perhaps you are less capable of handling the truth than I am. Sorry also for discussing others who know who I am. I understand why that could be argued that saying that was perhaps uncalled for. Michihiro Yumoto Soga (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no COI with Otsuka and I think the digital pill is very cool. That doesn't make the edit any less spammy. I would be happy to discuss the edit at the talk page, which is where you should open a discussion. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Annakoppad paid editing

Did you notice that yet another article―Blueshift Labs Inc―has appeared on her list of paid work on her user page? Presumably that's because I challenged her on it at WP:COIN#Annakoppad. I admire your patience but to me she is quite clearly only disclosing paid work reactively, when she thinks it has been found out anyway. Or are we seriously supposed to believe that no money changed hands for Rajiv Gandhi National Institute of Intellectual Property Management, Avaza software, Aninda Sinha, Giridhar Madras, or Dineshkumar Harursampath? At what point do we conclude that a paid editor like this is WP:NOTHERE? – Joe (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this is difficult. I don't know if the issues are language based or actual resistance. I agree that those articles that were not disclosed look/looked spammy and may well be UPE.... but are they paid or just kind of incompetent? At this point it is too early to say.

I am hopeful that they will learn and do better in terms of disclosing and putting things though peer review and making higher quality edits generally. I intend to give them some time to see, and if they do not improve and the pattern continues then yes i believe they will end up indeffed. Other people might want to take action sooner of course. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

RE [1]

I recognize the fact that WP:SOCK#LEGIT says legitimate alts are not "socks" but I worry that a broad general swath of the population might wrongly equate the two or misunderstand the distinction... if all socks are by definition undisclosed socks, then adding the word is not wrong (at best redundant) but avoids any misunderstanding due to misconceptions. Just my 2¢. Not every commenter on WT:ADMIN or about the eventual RfC knows WP:SOCK policy as well as you and I do. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

no one who is even moderately clueful will misunderstand that, nor mistake your paid alt as a sock. Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding changes to AfD Page over biased statement

Could you please explain to me why you undid my change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diak4 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Please open a discussion at Talk:Alternative for Germany. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Diak4 opening RfC based on objection to "left-wing partisanship" in Alternative for Germany

Hey there. I just wanted to inform you that User:Diak4 has opened an RfC on the lede for Alternative for Germany [here that goes as follows: "I am concerned of the partisan nature of this sentence and it disrupting the neutrality of the page since it is making an allegation that many supporters of this party are racists, neo-nazi's, etc. I am even more particularly concerned with the sources being so biased against this party as well as being partisan, left-wing sites. I understand that this is not against WP:RS however it brings the opinion of these sites and states them as facts on the Alternative for Germany page." This is based on a previous discussion here:[2] which you were involved with. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 12:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Zcash

You made some edits today that were in error:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zcash&diff=prev&oldid=816242368 — This content was supported by the ref, except for the point that Zcash uses zk-snarks. That fact is present in almost every other citation on the page (and is even mentioned on the page).
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zcash&diff=next&oldid=816242368 — It follows from the definition of fungible.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zcash&diff=next&oldid=816242884 — Zcash is an implementation of Zerocash, and has been since the beginning. It says so in the second sentence of the Wikipedia article. Here's the specification for Zcash which clearly states it: https://github.com/zcash/zips/blob/master/protocol/protocol.pdf
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zcash&diff=next&oldid=816243299 — This change is effectively censoring the core contribution of the relevant citation. While the added material is fine, the was removed content was relevant and should not have been removed. Additionally, mention of t-addr and z-addr is superfluous when transparent and shielded were already mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukedmor (talk • contribs) 16:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss edits at the talk page. Please also see your talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

No fancy template...

Jyt, but just but to wish you happy holidays and all the best for 2018. It's probably a lot warmer where I am than where you are 😎 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

That is super kind of you. Many happy returns, to you! Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

And olive branch & holiday wishes!

Jytdog, please accept these holiday wishes :) I've caused this year to end on a chord of disappointment for many, but I hope that despite my mistakes and the differences in opinion and perspectives, and regardless of what the outcome is or in what capacity I can still contribute in the coming year, we can continue working together directly or indirectly on this encyclopedic project, whose ideals are surely carried by both of our hearts. I'm hoping I have not fallen in your esteem to the level where "no hard feelings" can no longer ring true, because I highly respect you and your dedication to Wikipedia, and I sincerely wish you and your loved ones all the best for 2018. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC), humbled but optimistic about the upcoming year of renewal and growth!

That is very kind of you. Happy holidays to you and yours as well! Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Another possible COI/Paid editor

Hi Jytdog. You were lots of help in providing help to Gibmul regarding COI/paid editing, so I'm wondering if you'd mind taking a look at HoundstoothSC and AadarshNagarik. I stumbled across Draft:MailControl while doing some non-free image checking and after doing a little digging I also found Draft:BlackWatch Advisors, Draft:Iain Shovlin, Draft:Guild Capital, Draft:List of Guild Capital Investments and Andrew Kass. Both of these accounts (there's a chance they are the same person) are fnew WP:SPAs focussing on articles/drafts related to Kass and Shovlin. So far, the BLP about Kass is the only one in the article namespace, but that was added ‎about a week ago directly to the mainspace without going through AfC. Skimming through all of these, they all pretty much read (at least in my opinion) like PR pieces written by persons connected to the subjects, who might possibly even being paid to create articles about these peoples/companies. IMHO, the Kass article seems a bit iffy per WP:BIO and reads more like a CV than an encyclopedic article; moreover, although the others are still drafts, they also seem to be heading in that direction. Anyway, I just want some more feedback before posting anything on either editor's user talk and adding some templates to the Kass article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, have looked at it. Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Do you think this is a case of undsclosed COI or paid editing? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

yep it is very very WP:APPARENTCOI. I did an SPI that was acted on with wonderful swiftness and they are blocked now. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Understand. Thanks again for your help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Now for the cleanup! Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The edits seemed a bit suspect, but I didn't even consider that the accounts might have been related to previously reported socking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this and calling it out! The SPI I did was just three accounts -- there may well be older ones that are sleeping. Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

God Jul och Gott Nytt År!

Som vi säger i Sverige.

User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.

May the Holy Prepuce protect you during the new year. Which makes me wonder: David collected a bunch of those for dowry. Were any of those "preserved" as relics? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

i am laughing and laughing.  :) Thank you for your always great sense of humor, and may your holidays be filled with goodness. Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Contributions of paid editor

FYI there's a contribution analysis here that might be useful ☆ Bri (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

EU Business School

Hi Jytdog, Don't know if you can remember but we corresponded over the IFA article previously. I was wondering if you could give me a hand on this article with your experience. I don't wish to get into an edit war but it appears some sourced content relating to accreditation/ranking etc are being removed. Can you help? Thanks in advance and Happy Holidays! Audit Guy (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Some curiosity

To quench some personal curiosity, are you sure about your statement:--Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (this is a branch of the institute that Wifione most heavily advocated for) at this SPI?Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 11:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

That was incorrect - thanks for pointing it out. have fixed. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

No qualms:) Have a happy and pleasant 2018 Winged Blades^Godric 13:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of referenced content

Please check the talk page [3]. You should avoid deleting the properly referenced content. Also, you have revered my edits based on SOCK and WP:RELTIME. But relative time was nowhere present in the article and you have removed the absolute time like 2016(i.e. proper date etc)Amicable always (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss content on the article talk page. On the behavioral principles, I have said nothing about SOCK and you should strike that. With regard to "sourced content", having sources is the minimum we need but is not sufficient; there are many things Wikipedia is not, and policies like WP:DUE matter as well. Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry X-mas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Jytdog, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

thanks for your kind wishes, and the same to you! Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

!!!!Merry Christmas!!!!!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Jytdog, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks for your happy wishes -- the same to you! Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

dreamzgroup.info spam lie

Hey

I have nothing in common with this spam dreamzgroup.info. Please delete this lie from my page. I only added summary of Investments, written especially for wiki.

Thanks Damian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damdzioch (talk • contribs) 07:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Well "lie" is strong. I did put the wrong spammed url. i corrected that on your talk page. I apologize for that mistake. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey,

Thanks. Sorry for probably being too rude - but you just compared my 10 years of work to some spammy webpage which only wants users cash... And instead of just sending message that I should add it in curlie, you call it spam, probably without reading&understanding. For me there is a big difference.

Damian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damdzioch (talk • contribs) 07:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Why did you remove the addition of Starkey Hearing Technologies

Hello - this company was under Main Manufacturers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_aid

as Starkey Hearing Technologies  is one of the main manufacturers in the industry, the ONLY USA one and all other companies are listed. Not sure how that is blatant spamming?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.100.118.140 (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC) 

Please see your talk page at User talk:167.100.118.140. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Jytdog, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, Chris Troutman (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks Chris! The same to you and yours. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

What to do next?

Hello! Have you closed the wake of the problem (H vs MSM), where and when can we find out the final community solution for using the term? Can you make recommendations? Thank you! Путеец (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You have no support for what you want to do. The right thing to do at this point is drop it and let MSM stand. Jytdog (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not yet experienced in the work. Is this the ultimate decision? Can it be canceled somewhere? I proved by screens that this term is used in modern sources, without quoting. And in my opinion, what we have now done is distorting quotes. Thank you for your advice. Путеец (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read the link at "drop it" above. You are not getting any support. There are other dispute resolution methods described at WP:DR but I can assure that you that pursuing any of them will be a waste of your time, and more importantly, other people's time. If you cannot yield to consensus, you will not last long in Wikipedia - you will leave frustrated or get thrown out of here. Jytdog (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Those involved in the discussion were deceived by Alexei. He argued that modern sources do not use the term "homosexual". I added proof of the opposite, but you did not give a voice to the rest of the dialogue, after I added the proof. In addition, I was supported by two participants, if I understand correctly. English at me is bad. Perhaps you will give a voice to the participants of the dialogue, after acquaintance with my evidence and will a consensus be reached? Путеец (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I have read everything that has been written, as it was written. I am not deceived by anybody. Neither is anyone else who is saying "no" to you. Editing Wikipedia is not some rote exercise where we mechanically reproduce what sources say. The purpose of the contemporary term, MSM, is to describe behavior and to avoid trying to figure out how people identify themselves. Men who have anal sex with other men are at risk of developing anti-sperm antibodies - whether they identify as homosexual is irrelevant. As I said, if you want to pursue this further use one of the methods described in WP:DR. But I recommend you drop it. Jytdog (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for learning! I will continue WP:DR, as it is fundamentally. This distorts the quotes of the source, destroys the ability to search for important information, and I regret your decision to interrupt the dialogue after providing evidence. Perhaps you will change the decision, and save my time, and the time of others, allowing the continuation of the dialogue? Путеец (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Take the time to indent your posts and sign them.

The discussions at the talk pages are going no where. You will not give up and you are not going to get consensus there. It is time to give up or try another way. I recommend you drop this.--Jytdog (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I will not use it. I will continue. I'm sorry to trouble you. Путеец (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Please Help rather then cause Regression

Hi I see that you have removed most of my additions to the condensation reaction page because they were a, "formatting mess." I agree that they were poorly formatted, but there was a lot of good and helpful content there; why not just edit the formatting real quick if you are so familiar rather then removing the content. That seems far too regressive and counter productive in my opinion. Anyway I'll check the links you posted about chem page formatting and re-upload my edits soon. Any suggestions to the page content are welcome!! Mm9656 (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 13:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks old-new person. Your name is appropriate for this time of year! :) Jytdog (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

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

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, and Happy New Year!

Dear Jytdog, Thank you for your hard work on improving the article Antisperm antibodies (and improving the rationality of discussion on the article Talk page)! I would like to use this opportunity to wish you Happy and Prosperous New Year 2018! Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind wishes. Same to you! Jytdog (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Conduct of Mister Wiki editors proposed decision

Hello Jytdog. I would like to inform you that the proposed decision of Conduct of Mister Wiki editors case has been posted. Feel free to comment in your own section at the corresponding talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:PARITY

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

---

Hi! While I understand the reasoning between WP:PARITY, that is simply a guideline, and has to be trumped by policies. We can;t use self-published sources for controversial statements about living people, so I've been removing scienceblogs where it has been misused. In this case it isn't an issue anyway - the blog is acceptable for the claim about itself, and other sources are provided for the only potentially controversial claims. So removing it in the two controversial locations makes no significant difference to the sourcing, and still leaves us following BLP. I'd add, though, that the Forbes reference you've added is also self published, and has the same problem, and the Slate article doesn't support the claim. - Bilby (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

This is a very, very old and boring issue, where BLP and PSCI intersect. Both of these are policy. Both are. The fact that he says things is true; as is the fact that they are pseudoscience almost always and dangerous in others. Mainstream medical sources don't talk about this, yada yada yada. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I probably wasn't very clear.

• I wish to remove the self-published scienceblog source in two out of the three places it is used, but this will not change the content, as that content is already reliably sourced.
• I will need to remove the statement that he claims that cancer treatment is a fraud, as that is not reliably sourced and thus is a BLP issue.

Otherwise I don't think I need to make any other changes to the content. I'll fully explain the second change on talk. - Bilby (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You are not dealing with PSCI which is also policy and that you will be violating by removing this and its source. Please do not cherrypick policy.

Also, have you reviewed the many discussions that have been held about using refs like those written by Gorski in just these kinds of situations? See for example Talk:Michael_Greger/Archive_2#Request_for_comments_on_SBM_source. Jytdog (talk)

You really don't seem to be getting the point. There is no hassle with content, as I'm not removing any content that is sourced by Gorski. My issue is that using a self-published source for factual statements is not the best option, and where there are alternative sources - as here - the self-published source should be replaced with a better one. The views remain. I'm just removing the sources which are insufficient for a BLP, not the content that they support. - Bilby (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Bilby, you just made a serious misrepresentation which I suggest you correct. Above you wrote The views remain but at the article you did remove content describing the views. Would you please fix one or other? Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

No, what I wrote was accurate. The content removed was not sourced to Gorski. - Bilby (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Closing this now. Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Refactoring 'votes' at talk:Alternative for Germany

Just a heads-up - saw you commented. An anon removed two 'votes' here. The 'votes' were both 'remove'. Say, you voted 'keep'... That wasn't you logged out, now? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

nice catch, thx Jytdog (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:paysafecard

Hi Jytdog, sorry to bother you; how was your new year's? Would you take a look at this draft when you have time; the main contributor is very well-meaning and has been cooperative. They have asked me for feedback, my first thought was still half of the content could be trimmed; but as I am relatively weak in this field, I was wondering perhaps it would be easier for you to summarize helpful thoughts. Best, Alex Shih (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

it was fun, thanks! i hope yours was the same. will look.. Jytdog (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Shack décor

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For starting the "admin CoI reform" ball rolling in earnest, with sufficient research to give it momentum here; looks like the later RfC [4], based on your draft proposal, is going to pass, and this is long overdue (even if maybe not entirely sufficient – baby steps!).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  05:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

+1. That was really helpful, what you started. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Reversions

You provided no explanation for your last reversion and never addressed my comments, never seeking to use any talk page. All three are pretty improper as well. I'd appreciate if you did that before blindly reverting. Read my edit summaries and please provide a valid rationale. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The edit notes are clear; I did not blindly revert and for writing bullshit on my talk page that I did, you are now formally disinvited from posting here. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Dispute resolution link re: Myofascial Release

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. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Myofascial_release".The discussion is about the topic Myofascial release. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memtgs (talk • contribs) 07:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Good deeds rarely go unpunished—and, sure enough, here is a request for help

Fellow Wikipedian (I don't know a more personal name to use and hesitate to use the familiar Dog. I've followed your thoughts on conflicts of interest and paid editing—and approve to the point I am asking your help.

Edits popped at pending changes at an article on my watchlist. I checked the edits and found enough to impel me to consider the other eight or so edits made by the account. I then reverted these four pending edits (previously, four other pending edits made by the same account to the article had been reverted. I'd like to know what you think about my reaction. The account left a polite message on my talk page (the message and my reply are here on my talk page). My reply, containing diffs, should present the necessary information. The account has likely been used by at least two persons, one of whom presents as a published college professor. Thanks. - Neonorange (Phil) 01:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Will look! Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You reaction was entirely appropriate. Thank you for that! I wonder why you think more than one person is using the account. do tell... Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

My reasoning

• The account, Profrich, is so new as to be non-autoconfirmed
• from the message posted on my tp, reads, in part

I wrote a current AI book and referenced it in appropriate places., a claim to be Richard Neapolitan

• the sig to this message is just profrich in plain text and otherwise unsigned; the ip address appears
• yet the references added to the AI article were properly formatted (though the URLs pointed to sales pages rather than citable content)
• the sentence from the nessage that reads

I would imagine they or their students put most of the references in. (speaking, I think, about cites added by other editors to the AI article.)

Q.E.P.

I may very well be wrong—but now it seems a copyvio has been added by the Profrich account (and quickly removed by another editor). I think the dual use is probable, but not actionable. I am confident no paid editing is involved in this rapidly developing train wreck. Just coi promotionalism by possibly more than one person. I am interested in A.I., but not enough to help out here because of all the preconceptions Profrich evidently holds about Wikipedia.

Thanks for listening and responding. Keep up the good work. If you have anything I could help work on, please ask.

Neonorange (Phil) 03:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I see about the dual use. Well hopefully we will get that cleared up. If you are interested in working on COI issues more clueful help is always needed at WP:COIN. Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. COIN added to my watchlist. Neonorange (Phil) 15:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Whoaaa! I just read the message from a profich [sic?] sigged Profrich that you moved from your tp. I worked as a documentary film maker and later for a television broadcast network news organization. Judging credibility on the fly is a necessary skill for that work—and, evidently, in this work also. Glad (or sad) to see my instincts are useful here. Neonorange (Phil) 16:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Well it is still unclear to me...people say all kinds of things. Part of the difficulty of this work is working in that ambiguity. It always has to start and end with content; dealing with user behavior always has to be aimed at getting good content in and keeping bad content out. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

And that's exactly point for journalism—is the content supported by reliable and verifiable statements? (a difference being the verifiability in journalism depends on there being multiple, independent, sources—that's how good journalism produces WP:RS) The starting point is helping editors express their best, but conflicts of interest, when unrecognized, compromise journalism and Wikipedia articles. In my experience, onflicts of interest are treated much more rigorously in WP:RS journalistic enterprises than in Wikipedia (so far). If you'd like, I can provide you links to multiple codes of ethics for news organizations, and to a lengthy discussion at Victoriaearle archived talk page of WP:RS. Neonorange (Phil) 17:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes COI is handled much better in RW publishing. We have limits that they don't. If you haven't read it, I suggest you look at the stuff on my userpage at User:Jytdog#NPOV_part_2:_COI_and_advocacy_in_Wikipedia if you haven't already -- especially the part about "the big tension in WP". Those limits mean we have to be very cognizant of what we cannot know and work within that ambiguity. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Warning

I notice you didn't give a warning to Doc James for revert-warring and you also don't appear to be an admin, which makes your warning empty and apparently an attempt at intimidation. Like other feminists who have attempted to edit, I've been warned that trying to add information to Wikipedia about women's issues will result in bullying from male editors, and thus it goes. Women's issues are not adequately addressed in WP, likely because of male bias from WP's patriarchal editing population, so your efforts to fight that would be appreciated. CorduroyCap (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I had no idea you are a woman and have no way to know. I do know that your edits ignored MEDRS and that you were edit warring across several articles to add badly sourced content. Which you should not do regardless of what gender you claim. fwiw i find your brusque assertions rather typically "manly" and i mean that in the negative way. Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Trying to withdraw?

Doe this comment indicate a desire to withdraw your AN3 complaint? I imagine that could be done. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. The issue is well over from my perspective. Jytdog (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Latest Edit to the Page of Daniel Tomasulo

Hello,

You made an edit on a page I put up. You took off a reference to the subject of the page as being named one of the top 10 influencers on depression by Sharecare. Dr Tomasulo is not affiliated with Sharecare.

You'd said, if I'm understanding this correctly, that it needs an independent reference. I respect your change, but would like to ask you to please elaborate for me on what you mean by an independent reference? The link should lead to the page on the Sharecare website where they list the top 10 influencers for depression that they chose.

I look forward to hearing from you!

Thank you so much! Barbara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babbsie (talk • contribs) 22:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not a good ref. Very commercial. See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Sharecare. Please also see your talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

For the work on Victoria Jackson. I continue to be thankful and impressed by your work against conflict of interest editing. Alex Shih (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

well i would rather say "helping people with a COI learn how we manage it", but thanks! :) Jytdog (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Conduct of Mister Wiki editors case closed

This arbitration case, for which you were named as a party, has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Jackson

Slow down, cowboy. You're making more mistakes than improvements in your rush to return wording and content you put in the article. If you want to copyedit and correct typos, great, but make sure you do it so you're not just reverting back to your preferred version and personal wording choices. Collaborative is the call of the day. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Winkelvi, would you be more specific about the "mistakes" and raise them on the article talk page instead? Alex Shih (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Some really bad grammar, poor and redundant wording choices, sloppy syntax. Some good typo fixes from what I was in the midst of doing, but mostly editing that is not better than what I fixed. And removal of names of husbands in a BLP? I can understand it for children, but husbands? That's the first time I've seen it in a BLP for the reasons Jytdog stated in the edit summary, especially for a celebrity marriage. As far as how it's all going down, you can look at the recent diffs yourself, Alex Shih. I was just about to retire for the night and won't be visiting the talk page tonight to expand on my commentary here. Maybe sometime tomorrow. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss content on the talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

sanction notice???

Hey, what's going on? The 1997 paper on coffee enemas might talk about its safety, but not the goop connection. The safety stuff is covered in the Ars Technica article, without turing Goop into a WP:COATRACK of 'the safety warnings for everything that has featured on goop'. I added a relevant point from the 1997 paper to the article on coffee enemas. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

In addition - adding the critical commentary that Goop uses feminism to draw her customers closer to her isn't promotional. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Your edits are removing critical content and adding promotional content. Not ambiguous. Please make sure that you read and follow WP:PSCI which is policy; see also WP:FRINGE. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You have mistaken me for the IP hopping person who edits this article. I have added information about how Goop runs as a company to balance out the criticism, which has included some primary sources. I have added criticisms of Goop where they are needed too. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If I were trying to suppress sourcing, why would I have added it to the coffee enema page??? I readded the template so that more people could see it. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I have listed the discussion on the third party opinions page to try to get more eyeballs. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I cannot explain your behavior. Thanks for seeking dispute resolution. Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from trying to, then, because I do not appreciate your accusations. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I can describe it. I cannot explain it. Jytdog (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Gibmul again

Hi Jytdog. Gibmul just made another major addition to Silent Siren. I reverted him/her, but please undo if my revert was a bit excessive. It does appear that Gimbul requested the change on the article's talk page, but it looks like it was not formatted correctly so it just sat there. The content still seems a bit promotional to me, but I'm not a J-POP expert so to speak. It also seems that Gimbul might be getting a bit antsy that his/her proposals are not being reviewed/approved fast enough; perhaps there's some employer set deadline involved here. So, maybe you could take a look again to see if the content is OK? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Ciprofloxacin

Hi, I see you have just deleted that Ciprofloxacin side effects can be disabling. I am trying to raise awareness about new information from the FDA that Ciprofloxacin can have disabling effects. Can you agree this is important information? Link to the FDA safety announcement below. Many thanks

https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm511530.htm Wiki woms (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss article content at the article talk page. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I would love to discuss this on the article talk page. Could you please reply to the last couple of messages I have directed towards you on there. Many thanks Wiki woms (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

EBM jihadists

You removed my text from the FM page. Trying to hide something?Oleondre (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Your edit violated the OUTING policy and it has been oversighted (permanently deleted from Wikipedia). If you do that again you are likely to be indefinitely blocked. Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Editing block?

Hey again, more about the CIA - I see more and more from the paid staffer Jnormy in the CIA's article. He admits he's paid for that, and I found his real name/position which verifies that. Could he be blocked from directly editing those articles? I would see that as appropriate, given many bad-faith/promo direct edits. His most recent edit today diff is simple censorship, covering up that some notable graduates are involved in wrongdoings revealed as part of the Weinstein effect. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 14:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I see you mean like here where they wrote in Wikipedia, Updated information related to the acquisition by the CIA. I am an administrator of the college.). Yes they should not be editing directly. Hopefully we can teach them the correct things to do -- if not then yes we will end up having to block them. I just left them a message at their talk page to get their attention and will see if they are willing to learn what they should do. Thanks for calling my attention to this. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I regard false accusation as personal attacks. Be warned. The Banner talk 18:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Images

Hey Jytdog, I was wondering if it is permitted-or good editing practice-to use an image from original(personal) research that replicates results from a meta analysis. Specifically, in the Biology of bipolar disorder, the uncited image is personal work. Thanks for any help in advanced.Petergstrom (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to that. WT:MED would be a better forum to ask... Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Seeking your input for The Signpost

Jytdog: I have been doing The Signpost's arbitration reports for a few issues now. For this issue we are preparing a writeup on the Mister Wiki case that just closed. I followed your input keenly, particularly what you wrote in the workshop phase. I'd like to invite you to prepare an up to 250 word response to the report I've drafted, or really whatever you think the readers should know about the case. I'll be asking another key contributor for input as well.

Right now we are really close to our proposed publication deadline, so if you would like to contribute please tell me if you could do it by the end of day Friday (Pacific Time). If the publication deadlines don't line up with your availability, then of course you can post your reader comments after publication as usual. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Bri, I can't wait to see the image caption! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I found the Judges of Hell a fitting image. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

When I first saw it, it was the dinosaur! I was thinking of starting a betting pool as to who it was really depicting. (joke) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Joke's on both of us then. The dino is just the standard placeholder image for Signpost drafts. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Uer:Bri i have posted a draft at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Arbitration_report#proposed_content. happy to receive any feedback from anybody. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've not heard back from the other workshop participant, nor the editor-in-chief, so this is on hold for a bit ☆ Bri (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Images

Hey Jytdog, I was wondering if it is permitted-or good editing practice-to use an image from original(personal) research that replicates results from a meta analysis. Specifically, in the Biology of bipolar disorder, the uncited image is personal work. Thanks for any help in advanced.Petergstrom (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to that. WT:MED would be a better forum to ask... Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Seeking your input for The Signpost

Jytdog: I have been doing The Signpost's arbitration reports for a few issues now. For this issue we are preparing a writeup on the Mister Wiki case that just closed. I followed your input keenly, particularly what you wrote in the workshop phase. I'd like to invite you to prepare an up to 250 word response to the report I've drafted, or really whatever you think the readers should know about the case. I'll be asking another key contributor for input as well.

Right now we are really close to our proposed publication deadline, so if you would like to contribute please tell me if you could do it by the end of day Friday (Pacific Time). If the publication deadlines don't line up with your availability, then of course you can post your reader comments after publication as usual. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Bri, I can't wait to see the image caption! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I found the Judges of Hell a fitting image. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

When I first saw it, it was the dinosaur! I was thinking of starting a betting pool as to who it was really depicting. (joke) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Joke's on both of us then. The dino is just the standard placeholder image for Signpost drafts. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Uer:Bri i have posted a draft at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Arbitration_report#proposed_content. happy to receive any feedback from anybody. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've not heard back from the other workshop participant, nor the editor-in-chief, so this is on hold for a bit ☆ Bri (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

warring

Hi, the same editors going bezerk on Ethereum are also borderline edit warring over on the Bitcoin page. Hasn't gone to ANB, but I did create a Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#digiconomist to try to deal with it. Seems they want to use blogs and other crap sources to push a POV. Feel free to comment. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

yep. Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Not a barnstar

Overstepping to collapse this conversation. This need not to continue. Alex Shih (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Fuck barnstars, here is a plastic cup you can spit in. I need your DNA in order to clone you. Dealing with COI editors is depressing. Keep up the good work. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC) :) that is actually 23andme's secret mission you know. cloning all of us after they mix in some alien dna. Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC) I think I may have met some of their, ehm, early prototypes. Not enough human DNA. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC) I find this very insulting and childishly inappropriate. This isn't a chat forum, it's a professional-level encyclopedia. Show at least an ounce of courtesy or respect for other editors. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC) That comment (dated today 04:33) wasn't about you. I haven't met you... Heck, statistically it is extremely unlikely that a comment I made is about you. This is a talk page. I have no idea what "a professional-level encyclopedia" means. You are talking to someone who literally pretends to be a potato while editing what you call "a professional-level encyclopedia". Perhaps you should apologize to Jytdog for your insults and empty threat before you use words like "respect". Dealing with COI editors is seriously depressing. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC) You posted that comment in the midst of our conflict about Interactive Brokers, which is involving Jytdog as well. So it's far more likely than not. And maybe you should change your username or otherwise go to 4chan or Reddit. Us editors are serious about our work, and your comment above, as well as the "facepalm" emoji you put on my talk, makes you seem far too immature for a project like this. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC) Not everything is about you. I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. In real life you would be very polite to me (and vice versa) so you are basically a keyboard warrior. (Redacted). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Authority Nutrition

Hello Jytdog. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Authority Nutrition, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Seems a bit too balanced to be G11 for me (contains criticisms). Probably a better candidate for AfD. . Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

User:TonyBallioni. If that seems "too balanced" to you you didn't take the time to really look. Please look at the history where I went through it ref by ref and commented on the shitty quality of the "article" and of your "review". Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

G11 is about the wording of the article, not the sources. The article when I read it contained fluff but also criticisms as a substantial part of the text. It was so short that honestly it read more like a critique of the company than an advertisement to me. The fact that you were able to go through and put it into the state it is in now shows that it was not G11. It probably should be deleted, but when there is any question as to if it meets the CSD criteria, it should go to AfD or PROD. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

WP is based on reliable sources. There were zero independent sources with substantial discussion from which to generate content. I guess in your WP we can make up shit and throw bullshit refs behind them and have something reasonably sustainable. Your WP is my nightmare. You fucking nominate it for deletion since you won't delete that piece of shit. I am not wasting more time on it. The shit is on your hands now. Yours. Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I’d be glad to, but you’re likely more familiar with the sourcing than I am. Overuse of the CSD criteria beyond what they authorize is one of the reasons why it is so hard to delete spam at AfD: people falsely think that our only avenue to delete it is through G11, which is not the case. A strict interpretation of G11, along with a liberal use of AfD in my opinion the best way to deal with the problem of promotion within the current policy confines. Unfortunately, as much as I would like that article to meet G11, I don’t think it does under the current wording. I am certainly not advocating for the article to remain in Wikipedia, but I’m also not going to delete a page under the CSD policy that I don’t think qualifies for that specific deletion process. I’d likely support a more liberal CSD policy (in fact I almost always support any attempt to expand it), but until that happens, we are left with the narrow structures of the current policy, and AfD and PROD when those criteria are not met. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I have nominated lots of pieces of shit like that for speedy and they have been speedied. Your interpretation of PROMO is way too narrow. The purpose of the words and fake refs is to get exposure for the website. An advertisement does not have to say "Buy a ginzu knife and get one free!" That page is pure toxic waste dumped here for promotional purposes. Obviously. Done by someone half skilled at fakery. But it so obviously is fake. There is nothing there about presenting "accepted knowledge" to the public and everything about getting exposure by exploiting WP's eyeballs. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I will be deleting this article and blocking the creator. It is sneaky move vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, please do not. I am sending it to AfD currently. Doing so would be an out of process deletion, and is part of the reason why it is so difficult to deal with this problem at AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Did you not read what I wrote? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

International Longevity and Cryopreservation Summit

Hi. I'm aware you frequently work in MEDRS and FRINGE areas. I don't. If you could take a look at the above article for issues in that regard, I'd appreciate it. I came across the article on NPP, and the talk page alerted me to the issues mentioned. I've nominated the article for deletion on notability grounds. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes i agree that afD is appropriate. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

10 years of editing

Happy First Edit Day, Jytdog, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Slightlymad 04:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

wow! Thanks. guess i should have attended the summit above or something... Jytdog (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Jytdog/Archive 25,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation! Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

David Wolfe

If you wanted to propose completely new wording, wouldn't it have been better to just propose that? There's no need to jump to an RfC for a proposal that hasn't even been discussed. Why go straight to an RfC? - Bilby (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss content at the talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't tasking about content - this is about your choice to go to an RfC with text that had never been discussed. I was wondering why you made this choice, rather than just proposing the text. - Bilby (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

you to me: I point you to the discussion above.

you to me: That would be a no again. We can't use the Forbes piece.

you to me: I don't see that we can use this..

you, when with other people present in the rfc: So how about "He advocates that people with cancer treat it with dietary supplements, and according to Kavin Senapathy he "demonizes" cancer treatments." To be honest, I'm not sure of the value of Senapathy's opinion, but this would be acceptable. (the Kavin Senapathy" piece is that Forbes piece)

Jytdog (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC) (fix preposition Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC))

You proposed text that was BLP compliant, so I'm willing to go with that in spite of reservations about Senapathy's value. Prior to that you proposed text that was inaccurate and not BLP compliant. Perhaps you should have proposed the compliant wording earlier? - Bilby (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No. Same sources and base concepts. The difference is that in the last one you were willing to propose something yourself using the same sources and work toward consensus.

You are disinvited from my talk page. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME and Danielle Fong's parents

The names of Fong's parents can be put in the bio part of the article or personal life as with Scooter Braun. I've removed them from the infobox as they are not notable to be listed there as you commented. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss on the article talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog can you make sure the DS editnotice gets placed properly on the article? It's not right to be warned of DS when that editnotice is not in place. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is correct to be given notification of the DS. That is what the notification is for. All that is, is notification that it is a topic with DS. Nothing more nothing less. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"Prior review"

There is no requirement that paid editing on WP be submitted to "prior review." Please stop misrepresenting policy by pretending that it does, as you did on THIS User Talk page. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

While you are right that i made it look too black and white in that diff (I departed from what I usually say in that exact diff and I shouldn't have) the COI guideline is very clear that direct editing is very strongly discouraged . That is about as close to "must not" as WP gets without going there (and there are very, very few places where policy/guidelines say "must")

It is widely expected that people don't directly edit for pay (with a few exceptions).

For several years now, I have been looking for a test case of a paid editor who discloses and edits directly (refuses to put things through prior review) -- especially new articles. I haven't found one yet. I believe that if I find one, and the person is a typical paid editor (content mostly low quality and promotional) that the community will take action against them. At that time I will have the diff of the case to show you. Or maybe we will succeed at some point in getting the "prior review" thing added to the PAID policy, formally. We'll see. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Carrite is a paid Upwork editor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, that is an exaggeration, Kudpung, but thanks for making me look! So Tim is doing an experiment - 3 paid jobs, per User:Carrite#Paid_editing_notice.

Tim, you should read something about the design of experiments. All experiments are artificial and results need to be interpreted carefully; with such a small N, no randomization or blinding, etc, and with you being a) so experienced, and b) carrying such a big ax into it, the resulting data is going to be of limited use and interpretation is going to be very subject to things like confirmation bias. But I look forward to hearing your description of what happens.

I have no doubt that it is possible to edit for pay, commercially, and to do it in a way that is a clear net benefit to WP and the community. The path to do so is very narrow and few people have the self-awareness, self-control, and cluefulness to do it. But it is possible. Sure. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I was just looking for a good story to tell about my experiences in a piece for Signpost. I learned a little bit doing one piece, good enough. Carrite (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung's character assassination above says it all, really. Carrite (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep there are people who hate paid editing and are mean to paid editors. I don't find the mean behavior appropriate. The community blocks/bans people who take that too far. User:Inlinetext was the last one that i recall.

One of the most common ways that paid editors screw up is that they get overly defensive and self-righteous when their work is reviewed and then really lose it in reaction to jibes from the haters, and given that they generally edit and behave in a way that is suboptimal anyway, they end up hanging themselves. That is why the "self control" thing is so important.

Did you ever write it up? Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it wasn't that good of a story. I learned about how paid editing is done and what it feels like to do paid editing. (You might try it and see...) But maybe three years later Kudpung and his friends will turn it into a good story after all. Carrite (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I honestly don't remember exactly how ODesk (the name of the company that I signed up with, which I learned about from Jimbotalk, incidentally) transfers money. It is either by PayPal or something similar to PayPal — there are no checks signed by anyone. They collect a spiff off every transaction: they made $5 and Heartland Humane Society made $50 off my work. Carrite (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. On the last thing, i asked, because i am trying to understand that better. I keep finding freelancers disclosing some name (or a partial name, or even a "handle" instead of a name) for who paid them, which is basically useless for understanding what the "external interest" is, that is driving the COI. For example the disclosures at Pozytyv where the employer is listed as "ilovescience" or "hiringking99", are just useless. (The hiringking99 one is especially a head scratcher. the ilovescience one is obvious based on the articles.) Jytdog (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Long-time Upworker chiming in (I even did a Wikipedia-related job recently, data processing stuff). It's plausible that some freelancers using platforms such as Upwork don't know who is hiring them. Any payments are made by Upwork Inc and the entire communication may be conducted through the Upwork website. I can imagine a situation where the freelancer never learns the client's name. They probably cannot make a valid disclosure and shouldn't edit if that's the case. On a related note, you might find this thread on Upwork's community forum interesting. Rentier (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Rentier! Good to see some clueful discussion there among the writers. Very good. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

SPA placing scholarly, but problematic external links

The SPA (so far, @37 edits),, is adding external links to pages on this website (1914-1918-online) at various World War I related Wikipedia articles. Ernest Hemingway is on my watchlist—I checked and reverted dif a recent edit by this editor that added the external link

* Vernon, Alex: Hemingway, Ernest , in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.

The content at this link is not really suitable for an external link for the Hemingway article, and I imagine this could be true for all the external links added by this editor. It could be seen as a campaign to promte the website. The Wikipedia article about the website is 1914-1918-online. The articles might be consider RS, but useful then as a source, not an external link.

I reverted the addition at the Hemingway article with this edit summary:

(revision 821252318 by Manimony (talk) revert—see WP:External links#What to link; if WP:RS, could possibly be used as source).

I could check the other additions by this editor for suitablility and post a gentle note explaining external links usage. Should I ask about a COI? — Neonorange (Phil) — 10:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Phil. Yep that is the behavior of someone who has some connection with that site. These are difficult cases. Yes, asking about COI would be very appropriate and hopefully they will be forthright. They probably believe that their site adds a lot of value. The key next step will be to discuss with them the notion that it is general practice here in Wikipedia to get prior consensus before making some kind of systematic change, like introducing a single source to a lot of articles. This ~looks like~ spamming. The person should pause on continuing to add it, and should get consensus that this is a valuable source in Wikipedia before continuing to add it. The place to do would probably be WT:MILHIST. If people there buy in, great, and if they don't, then the person should stop...

Does that make sense?

Let me know if you want to me to help or do anything. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful points. It fits together—I will check the other edits—and—I just did: twenty more edits today, some adding as many as five links to separate articles within the website, all led by the names of the contributing authors. It's promotional... and the editor probably doesn't realize it. I'll try to start a conversation today at Manimony's talk page, and will trade information with the editor, bringing up, in context the norms for an all volunteer project that has become such a huge promo magnet. I'll get back to you. Neonorange (Phil) 22:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

False claims

Claims you made in this edit are false. I suggest you remove them ASAP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

What is false there? You disclosed that you edited the article for pay; the other person actually edited it. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Was it the thing I changed here? Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Palm sugar

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

Happy New Year

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

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

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

Your opinion is requested at Talk:Alternative for Germany

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

What am I doing wrong?!

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

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

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

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

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

In Regards to my Update to Institute for Creation Research

Dear My. Jytdog,

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

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

A side note to my side note

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

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

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

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

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Morgellons shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Martin Friedrichsen (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Quick request

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

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

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

Second opinion requested

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

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

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

Medical Research and Nature

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Barnstar for You

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

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

Maximiliano Korstanje

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia CoI

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

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

"spammy?"

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

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

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

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

Fabry disease -- chemical chaperone therapy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Jytdog:

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

No, I am not new here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

typo

I did not mean to call you a dolt[5] I meant to say "you told" this was a typo. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

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

David L Katz

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

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

Amos Yee Talk Page Pedophilia Activism addition section

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

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

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

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

Back Again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Favour

I may have even asked you this before.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Aerotoxic syndrome shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 77.174.91.92 (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

NPOV warning

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

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

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Endometriosis

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

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

Immune checkpoint

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

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

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

Experimental design

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

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

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

A first?

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

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

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

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

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

Backlog update:

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

New Year Backlog Drive results:

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

General project update:

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

---

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

Bumf

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

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

Sophisticated spam

I came across a new editor, Udaybhatia (1 edit so far) who inserted [6] JavaScript that would, I think, load Google served ads into this article. I left a level four Spam warning because of the use of JavaScript. I'll keep an eye on the editor's contributions. Should I request a block if there is a repeat with no intervening legit edits? Also, should the JavaScript be over sighted to avoid giving others ideas?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CGRP

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

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

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

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

CREATES Act (US bill)

Hi Jytdog,

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

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

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

Response to my Message

Hi,

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

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

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

Hey Jytdog,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ahmed Faizan Sheikh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizan81 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

should probably say...

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

Thanks. Sorry for the drama.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

query

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

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

CCCLM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Spam" references

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neuralink Revision

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

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

Ludwig's angina

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

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

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

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

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor Re: questioning of meta-analysis

Dear Jytdog,

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

References

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

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

ANI

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

Acknowledge having read your COI comment

Hi there,

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

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

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

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

It is Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Near-death_experience Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Help with advertisement tag?

Hi Jytdog. I edited this version and found that the article was given an advertisement tag.

I looked up this good article and this good article as models for modification, and I translated the Korean version into English. I would appreciated it if you could let me know what was written like promotional contents, so that I can improve or delete.

(and, should I have put this talk on the talk page of the article?)

Thanks.

Bigsmile20 (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The page is horrible; your edit was more of the same but not why I tagged it. Yes please use the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		I found your comments on JacobPace's talk page to be well reasoned and tactful. Thank you. -- Dolotta (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks :) Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Young Pioneer Tours

I believe it is best taken to AFD. I will not participate in that given discussion because I have a declared COI with this organisation, but I think it is notable enough not to be "speedy deleted" as it is the leading company in this specific industry- TF92 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I disagree. The page would have to be rewritten from scratch. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletions are only for blatant offenders which have been instantly created. This article has been on here quite a while, I think this one would require at least a "PROD" or consensus of the community --TF92 (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That is not correct - we have speedy deleted pages that have been here for ten years. And you should not be directly editing that page as you have a COI, per the WP:COI guideline. I have self reverted as it was speedied before and declined. I am filling out the rest of the connected contributors on the talk page and will AfD it. What dreck. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The article was A7d and declined. So you are free to nominate it for G11, although I doubt you'll have much luck from a hardliner that isn't willing to grant considerable leeway in light of the COI issue. GMG^talk 19:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I just did the AfD; better to do that than have more drama. Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially since that leeway would probably be well into IAR territory, and just as likely as not to end up at DRV. GMG^talk 19:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

There are several more DPRK tour companies up for deletion if you are interested in these debates [7] [8]--TF92 (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

user:LukeSurl I never responded to this. Thanks! And I never got a half barnstar before - funny and clever. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

An answer to your remark

Hello,

Let me ensure you that, I’m not supported by any brand, person or company. I’m fully independent ! Nonetheless, I understand your remark and take into account the rules you mentioned.

Yours sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.12.59.184 (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what remark you are talking about or what article this deals with.Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Taiwan Medical Journal isn`t a reliable source. I finally understand. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sy036267 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem with your editing, is that all you have been doing is promoting He-Ping Cheng's four stage theory of death. Several people have noted this at your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Habakkuk

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.

---

Question 1: Can we agree that the book of Habakkuk had a human author? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

At least one, sure. Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Question 2: The Book of Habakkuk names this individual as "Habakkuk", with no further explanation of who this individual was, except to state that he was a prophet. The name "Habakkuk" might be the author's real name, but some scholars content this is a pen name or pseudonym, so the author's name may or may not be known. Agreed? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss this article content on the article talk page. Please do not ask about what I believe. We edit per sources, ideally secondary ones. Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

All of the above is cited from secondary sources in the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. EncycloPetey (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Another Daily Mail RfC

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Please don't edit my talk page with nonsense.

Thank you. Mfwitten (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it as nonsense if I were you but hey it is your path here in WP. Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

AE edit

Hi Jytdog,

I'm not sure what you meant to do with this edit at WP:AE but it has been reverted as a mistake by Power~enwiki. In the process, you've pinged a bunch of people (including me because of the old thread on EJustice), so I thought you might like to know so you can (a) re-try whatever it was you meant to do and (b) so you are aware a bunch of editors will be looking and wondering.  :)

PS: The section immediately above this puzzled me, giving yourself warnings, but I see they are part of the text that was added by an editor upset about being given warnings. You removed the edit warring notice but not that part, FYI, in case you want to ditch it too.  :)

EdChem (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Bad night for me eh? At the AE page i was trying to update the link to the statement by Wiki ED which has fallen into the archives there. should not have done that. will fix the thing above, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)