User talk:Jytdog/Archive 23

Could you nuke Special:Contributions/72.201.34.177? It seems to me like a spam campaign. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverted all and nominated for blacklist. Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey,

I saw your revert here - I' not here to maintain the article, I simply saw that you were asking for references and figured I'd quickly pitch in. If it's not to your liking fine by me, but at least please be mindful that you (re-)inserted a couple of typos... Cheers, Pplc (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Please be mindful of WP:PAID and please stop editing articles about your clients directly. That article still reads like an advertising brochure or company website in too many places. You are not nearly mindful enough that this community ~tolerates~ paid editors... barely. You need to step way more lightly if you want to keep your editing privileges here. Jytdog (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, you removed my writing on Optical coherence tomography about full-field OCT with "need secondary sources that say this)" I don't get your point as I put lot of references. How can I correct this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BP-Aegirsson (talk • contribs) 21:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! Wikipedia articles summarize accepted knowledge. We find "accepted knowledge" in what we call "secondary sources", which are references like review papers or book chapters, that themselves summarize knowledge in the field. Tertiary sources like textbooks are OK too. Please avoid assembling your own review of research papers (what we call "primary sources") in Wikipedia -- that is what you did. Does that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

ok I added secondary sources, Hope it's goo now BP-Aegirsson (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding churnalism edits. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --83.54.140.34 (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, Mihai - social media at Novozymes here. I know you have been a strong contributor to the Novozymes wikipedia page in the past and I wanted to know if you would be interested in contributing to the CEO page for Peder Holk Nielsen. We have a strong list of external references that could help in building it. Mihainovo (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to add to this, here are some 3rd party articles that describe him and that I think might form a strong base for creating that page. What are your thoughts on this? He is a member of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) G20 CEO Advisory Group ^[1],a member of the Danish government’s Digitization Council ^[2] , an advisor to the Foreign Economic Forum under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Denmark) ^[3] He was named among 30 Global Game Changers by Forbes (April 2016). ^[4] and among 100 top business visionaries by Business Insider (June 2016). ^[5] He was also a finalist in The Fortune Award for Circular Economy Leadership at the World Economic Forum (WEF) Davos Summit 2015 ^[6]

Mihainovo (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. He seems competent and accomplished. I don't see that he has done anything really interesting that people can learn from. Wikipedia was and is intended to be learning tool. It is not a directory like "who's who". It is not social media. Please do review WP:NOT, which defines what Wikipedia is, and what it is not. I do appreciate that you have asked for volunteer help instead of directly editing, and that you have disclosed your relationship with the company. I appreciate that very much. Jytdog (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm in complete agreement with you on this. If discussion arises elsewhere, feel free to ping me. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I keep writing long posts full of cursing and then deleting them. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I know that feeling. bd2412 T 20:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Well thanks for trying.
A future alternative may be a more generic VPP RFC about software features needing systematic (advanced tab if need be) preferences toggle option...
I recently also thought about proposing an option to disable all JS, because since recently, if it's blocked on my side, the notifications don't work anymore. This was claimed to be "as expected" when I reported this particular issue; it seems that depending on the User-Agent header details it currently enforces JS-requirement or disables it. Despite the fact that JS-less notifications used to work fine before.
On another front, apparently the current edit counters are also being deprecated for new ones. I today tried one of the future alternatives and it only partly worked, but since it's beta, who knows if that'll ever work properly eventually; WikiEd and the Visual Editor options never worked for me even with JS enabled, possibly again because it expects certain strings in User-Agent; all other sections only show dynamic-loading gif animations.
I could file official reports and track them, but having dealt with tickets, coding and release engineering for a living in the last twenty+ years, I'm sick of it for now... Oh well. This reminds me that I dropped my Google account years ago because of similar BS. —PaleoNeonate - 20:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

thanks for your note. yeah this is all hard. i don't know how to improve this situation; everybody is unhappy. i am glad there are as few fuckups as there are. one has to be grateful for that anyway. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jydog. Since you have quite a bit of experience dealing with COI related stuff, I am wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at Anne Ewing. I stumbled across File:Headshot of Anne Ewing.jpg via another editor's user talk page, and the file's uploader claims that she is Ewing's daughter. The uploader has been contributing to the Ewing article for quite some time, but the mother-daughter connection may not have been clearly stated before. Anyway, I've added a {{uw-coi}} to the editor's user talk (mainly for informational purposes) and a {{COI edit notice}} to the article's talk page (again for informational purposes), but haven't yet gone as far as {{COI}} or {{Connected contributor}}. I skimmed the article and some of it seems a bit WP:NOTMEMORIAL and some of the text is a bit puffy, but she does seem to be notable enough for an article. Do you think, based upon your experience, the article has a serious COI issue which needs to be more concretely addressed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

here

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog! Long time!

Wow... I read that you're not paid for your work?!! Unbelievable. I'm really indebted to you for your expertise and TIME.... You were the one who helped me get a grip here more than anyone else.

I got what you were saying on the CBD page about not posting "promising" medical info. What really caught my eye in the 2017 Campos review was, "...clear indications that CBD induces plastic changes similar to clinical antidepressant or atypical antipsychotic drugs, either acutely or repeatedly administered."^[7] I've always wondered: what do pharma meds actually do in the brain? Answer (I think): support brain plasticity.

When my son was on 650mg. CBD a day, he said, "My memory is coming back." THAT was a bullseye for me, and this review clarified that action for me. Was the whole Campos et al. review too CRYSTALBALL, or was it my writing, "While the mechanisms are still not well understood..."?

Thank you again - and thank you for your approach, dedication and tireless expertise donated to this site. Amazing.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Listenforgood (talk • contribs) 01:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 06:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

) Jytdog (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation--Moxy (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yep! I am thinking of trying to do this in that WikiProject instead of starting a new one. I was hesitant to try to graft one thing onto another, but several people have expressed support for that at VPP so am considering. Jytdog (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Good day, Jytdog! Unfortunately, your editing is not correct. You equate glycerin and fatty acids. But these are different substances: glycerol is alcohol and phosphoric acid, choline and 2 fatty acids are attached to it. This is one of the molecules of phospholipids that occur in a mixture of lecithin. Glycolipids and triglycerides are other complex molecules existing in the mixture. Best regards Liliya Yu (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Ok. It is better now. Liliya Yu (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

yay! Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't want you think I belittle your idea. Quite to the contrary. It's the initiative that counts. Just keep the ideas coming - we need them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Now this absolutely hits the nail on the head. I like it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

You think that is worth proposing at NCORP? Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, This is about the addition of Valluvar as the earliest of vegans. Although researcher are uncertain about his exact year, they consider him to have lived between 4th and 1st centuries BCE (the latest of the proposed dates being c. 31 BCE). I just happened to learn from his famous work, the Tirukkural (see <http://www.projectmadurai.org/pm_etexts/pdf/pm0153.pdf> for an English translation), that there is a separate chapter on vegetarianism/veganism (there wasn't any difference between the two in ancient India for Indian saints and sages were known for their strict vegetarian diet habits). See the chapter on "The Renunciation of Flesh" in page 31 of the PDF (couplets 251 to 260). Should we not consider this since Valluvar lived more than a millennium before Al-Maʿarri? Thanks for reviewing. Rasnaboy (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! But please post at the article talk page; as that is where discussions about content should go, for several reasons. I will reply there, right afterwards. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain this and this? The source clearly says 42. There was an error made by myself two months ago. Another editor corrected it but only halfway. I try to correct once and twice and you revert. What exactly are you doing? The edit summary here is especially odd. Please look at the source "Retrieved 13 June 2017." Does this look like 2016? The article is from 5 June 2017, how can it even be accessed in 2016? --Muhandes (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't even an error by myself two months ago, it was the 2016 rating. Look at this edit. 48 was the 2016 rating. The rating was updated by the template, this is simply updating the article to agree with the template. --Muhandes (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The way the infobox is built is invalid. The source says what it says and has the access date it has. The content says it says. These are not in sync. You also didn't change the thing you could have (the year). These ranking sections are a pain in the butt and WP would be way better off without them. The implementation at the Template:Infobox_India_university_ranking is especially problematic, since the refs are in the infobox template, not at the article, so the citation and the content totally fall apart. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Now I see, I forgot to change the 2016 to 2017. But this template is the consensus at WP:INEI since 2011. If you don't like it, start discussion there. It's used in hundreds of articles. --Muhandes (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I removed the infobox and added the refs, so now the content (rank AND date given in the text) can be updated, AND the date parameters in the refs can be updated, so the content can actually be supported by the source. Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

These rankings are crap content. We should not have them at all. Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I may agree. But there is something called consensus and it doesn't agree with you (or with me). I try to change it in WP:INEI for some time, removing some of the worst ranking, one by one. That template you removed is also part of the consensus. --Muhandes (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

If I don't get a response at the template talk page, I will nominate the template for deletion, and I am confident that the en-WP community will delete it. We cannot have a template that forces policy violations. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned there, named references on templates aren't uncommon, and they all may cause the same problem if used incorrectly. What we need is not to remove the template, but find a way in which it can be used without invalidating sources. --Muhandes (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, do you know if there is any Wikipedia guideline that encourages consistency in article format, particularly in introductions? I have made several edits to make the format of articles more consistent with one another, and it seems intuitively better that way, but I have never encountered a policy that encourages or discourages that. Do you know if that exists? Thanks. Michipedian (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you are asking, exactly. WP:MOS covers style generally, and WP:LEAD covers what you are calling the "introduction" (which should only summarize the body of the article). The sectioning of the body is different for different topics. The various WikiProjects all have subject-specific style guides:

• WP:PHARMMOS covers sectioning and style for articles about drugs, and WP:MEDMOS covers sectioning/style for articles about health, generally
• WP:WikiProject Biography has generated Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies
• for companies, the relevant guideline is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Companies/Guidelines

If you look on the relevant article Talk page, there should be WikiProject banners and you can go from them to the project and hunt around for their style guideline.

But broadly speaking, the general rule is that you follow the style established on the page.

But If the article was set up incorrectly based on the WikiProject guideline, changing it is often pretty easy to get consensus for.

Does that answer it? Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that is sufficient. Thank you. Michipedian (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to thank you for sending me tips on how to edit medical articles. I also wanted to clarify the reasoning for deleting my edits, as well as which specific tips were directed to my edits.

I understand that using medical journals as sources is appropriate, however it is rather challenging to find historical information in these types of sources. And so I used http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/themes/surgery/reconstructive to find historical information about reconstructive surgery. In your opinion, is there a more credible source that can be used?

A big chunk of my edits were just rearranging the article and adding sections since the original page was poorly organized and seemed like a bunch of word vomit with somewhat unrelated content.

Thanks! Jasska1019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasska1019 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Glad you found that bit of introduction to Wikipedia helpful! So that site is pretty... crappy. Not awful, but not great. That site, cites sources. Some of those look good.

We strive to aim high and provide really solidly grounded information to the public, so we ourselves need to reach high for the sources we use. I understand you are a student at CoD, which has a decent library, and reference librarians. I suggest you go talk to the reference librarians there and ask them to help you find good, scholarly works on the history of reconstructive surgery - they can also help you get access to anything the library doesn't have via interlibrary loan. They will be so happy! Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to accuse me of WP:PROMO, then please supply the evidence, otherwise I'd like an apology for that slur. You're now edit-warring against two editors without engaging on the article talk page. Please don't push this further. --RexxS (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Nope, not what i am saying. we are discussing this at WT:MED, as noted in my edit note. Please do continue discussing. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I realise that I probably had not properly presented what I find so appealing about the initiative, so I've now tried to explain what I was hoping we could do. I don't know how we can find a consensus, but I do hope we can look for a way forward in the same amicable way that we have in the past. Sorry for my irritability. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to upset you. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, thanks for replying and continuing the discussion regarding independent sourcing on the International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) page. Definitely far better to be discussing than edit warring. But to be honest I still don't fully understand why some sources are seen as independent and others not, or why references to the IACA website are not OK when Wikipedia pages about the UN and other international organizations contain many. I've filed a DR/N request in the hope of better understanding, with the help of you and other Wikipedians, what constitutes independent sourcing. I'm certainly not seeking further conflict - quite the opposite. I think we both share the goal of building a useful page about IACA. Best wishes,Richard.eames (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jytdog, I will be on vacation for the next 2 weeks and won't check in on Wikipedia. My colleague Adrian Ciupagea will step in for me, using his own name. He's also in IACA's communications team, so let me declare his COI here (he will do the same as and when he contributes). Hope we can continue the civil discussion and improve the page. Best, Richard.eames (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Over at Samuel I count five revert diffs today at David. Are you going to report this one as before, or should I get it? I want to make sure we don't duplicate efforts by both writing something up. Alephb (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind. Looks like I was forgetting a rule about how series of edits work. Alephb (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:David - you're messing w/ conventions that are widely accepted across the board. I don't mean the idea the biblical narrative is fact, I mean the idea these dates are reliable. Time and time again on other pages people have lost arguments about dating because of the sources used to cite them. These sources you removed w/o consensus, and if they work everywhere else, there's no reason they wouldn't work here. You don't get to break convention just because you find the evidence "murky". People think the world is flat, but that doesn't stop it from being round. BedrockPerson (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

You are not following mainstream ANE history. That is a problem indeed. And you already have responded to the thread I opened on the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Jytdog!

Thank you for your edits on the Charlie Gard article, but I must strongly disagree with you about one thing: I really think the article needs to mention that the RRM2B gene is located in the nucleus of the cell, not in mitos. I have encountered several non-bio-trained readers and in-person people who think that the bad mutation is part of the mito DNA, and are therefore confused about the recessive nature of the disease. Someone actually tried to tell me that the disease must be inherited only from the mother, because the mitochondrial DNA comes from her! Dead wrong. So I am adding back the sentence pointing out that the gene is located in the nucleus, in (parentheses), with a reference. I am also adding a new section to the TALK page of the article, in case you want to discuss the question further and/or seek consensus from other editors.

Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Would you please reply on the article talk page? I have left 2 notes for you there already where you had already agreed to leave it out. You are free to change your mind of course, but please talk at the article talk page -- in the existing section -- instead of trying to force this back in. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

OK! I have replied there. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry I missed your 1st note there. Jytdog (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem! I am eagerly waiting to see what you think of my reason for wanting to include the info that the gene is located in the nucleus--failing to include that info makes some readers jump to erroneous conclusions about the disease. But I'll look for your response on the TALK page of the article itself. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

These pages have been edited 81.100.25.101 by[]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:81.100.25.101#Edit_war_warning an EddieDrood sock, an editor known for falsifying references and making up terminology not present in references. See also this talk page. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Their edits were strange; sophisticated yet wrong and take time to sort. good to know they have been banned Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Jytdog I am surprised that you consider the theory ‘fringey’. I am forwarding the messages I sent to Roger Haworth and also to Narutolovehinata5 with links to articles which show the reaction of scientists and scientific journalists. “The theory has generated attention in the scientific community; reports of this work have appeared in scientific publications and the news media. Pertinent news media references are: - Harvard Gazette, 25th Feb. 2015: “A new understanding of Alzheimer’s”, by Peter Reuell (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/02/a-new-understanding-of-alzheimers/) - Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), 2nd Aug. 2015 : “Alzheimer: Heilung – wie nah ist man wirklich dran?“, by Joachim Müller-Jung (http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/medizin-ernaehrung/streitgespraech-alzheimer-heilung-wie-nah-ist-man-wirklich-dran-13722068.html?printPagedArticle=true#pageIndex_2) - Neue Züricher Zeitung (NZZ), 21st Feb. 2015: „Alzheimer – Sind die Forscher auf dem Irrweg?“, by Theres Lüthi (https://www.nzz.ch/nzzas/nzz-am-sonntag/gegen-alzheimer-gibt-es-noch-immer-kein-medikament--weil-die-forscher-auf-dem-irrweg-sind-1.18483526)"

“P.S. Regarding the fringe nature of the theory, here is an article in English, by Prof. Walter Bortz of Stanford Medical school, which you may find relevant: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walter-m-bortz-ii-md/dare-to-be-100-gold-medal_b_7270616.html “

Moreover, a careful and professional evaluation of the Wikipedia entry should make it clear that the article is encyclopaedic in intent; it is not exclusively concerned with the Inverse Warburg Hypothesis, but is intimately linked with Warburg’s theory of cancer and recent work on autoimmune diseases.

Best wishes Hasperasperagus Hasperasperagus (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow there is a full court press to publicize this, huffpo and everything. Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog,

I have edited Voriconazole page, which has certain peacock terms. Can you please look into the details? You seem to be an expert and can help in a better and unbiased Voriconazole page. I am waiting for your contributions on the page. Sundartripathi (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Generally fine, but see my changes here; please do review WP:MEDMOS. Thanks for checking in! Jytdog (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, Medical uses section is too much detailed and doesn't match with the Journal references. I am not experience on how to edit or what appropriate terms to use. Can you take a look at it? Sundartripathi (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, just saw your edit on the Medical uses, it seemed perfect and un-biased to me now. Thank you responding immediately. If I see issues on the other pages, can I report it to you (when I am not 100% sure)?Sundartripathi (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

sure. fixing that article has been on my to-do list for a while. Thanks for calling my attention to it. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your deletions in the Franklin v Parke Davis article. You removed relevant, pertinent additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieEdel (talk • contribs) 03:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for your note! I replied at the article talk page, Talk:Franklin_v._Parke-Davis#Celgene_content - please see there, and you can reply there. Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, I came across a post on some Japanese acupuncturist and wanted to update the section here on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure if I referenced it right or if the source was the best one. If you can fix it, please do so, and or show me a better way to reference it. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humberto Valle (talk • contribs) 13:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Would you please reply to the message I left at your talk page? thx Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Jytdog. A while ago, I moved Cannabis edibles to Cannabis edible, but I think I did this incorrectly because the talk page did not move with it. Could you please help me by explaining to me the proper method of moving such a page in a method that would also move the talk page or point me to a policy that explains it? Also, if appropriate, could you move the talk page?

I also hope it is OK for me to ask you questions like this. If it is not, could you direct me to an editor to whom it would be appropriate for me to ask these types of questions? Thanks. Michipedian (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure it is OK. Oy you did what we call a "copy/paste move" which is a bad thing for a bunch of reasons but mostly because it leaves the history of the former page location behind. There is a function called "page move"' that does the rename, and brings over the Talk page, and all the history of both pages. There is a thing that admins can do where they merge the histories. I will request that. I have done a copy/paste move of the Talk page so they will have parallel situations on each page.

This whole shebang is explained - including how to actually do the "page move" - at WP:Page move. Jytdog (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. Sorry for the copy/paste move, and thank you! Michipedian (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem! Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, the information in this panel is *not* available on the website (did you check?) which is why organizing it and collating it makes sense for Wiki. There are dozens and dozens of small record labels (ECM, Obscure Records, etc.) with catalog listings on Wiki and Cuneiform is right in line with Wikipedia policy on that. In the future you should put something like this up for discussion, per Wiki policy, rather than unilaterally taking it upon yourself to make changes without any consensus. This issue has been discussed, extensively, in previous years by previous editors and the Cuneiform catalog has been restored each time. Do yourself a favor, read the history.Rcarlberg (talk)

There is a discussion on the talk page, please join in it. If you continue to abuse that page for promotional purposes I will just nominate it for deletion; it is not notable enough to be worth the bother. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I posted a couple of questions for you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene Freidman. Just letting you know here in case you thought it was rhetorical. Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Last Word. (And your latest comments also reverted what I had said.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I restored it, no biggy. What matters more is that you are really stepping on your own message. Put another way: shut the f--- up. See also Logorrhea (rhetoric). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

OK thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I saw what you said about feeling upset, and you are in good company . That's from when I was first starting to edit, nowhere as experienced as you are now. ANI ain't gonna help you. I got over it, and so will you. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to ditto Trypto on this one. Nothing is going to help you Jytdog by adding more to the ANI at this point. ANI really isn't that great at dealing with behavior issues really mired in content disputes or picking up on COI aspersions. Your best bet is to let the dust settle on this one and keep track of concise instances if the problems persist in the future. It's just too much of a wall of text at this point for anything to be gained, and I see your frustration in all that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• thanks to both of you. i have heard your criticisms as well. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, recently I decided to create an account instead of editing as a "IP". I have come across your name a few times now and am impressed at your dedication to medical article and enjoyed your articles on MEDRS. I was wondering if you could weight in on the article Crane_climbing as another editor feels that including a Globe and Mail Opinion article written by a researcher that discusses a concept he created called "Type T" personalities. The other editor has stated that this isn't an opinion article and wants to re-include it. I will say I have run into this editor twice now and they have decided the best course of action is to try and discredit myself rather than comment on the content. Thank you! CommotioCerebri (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm not interested in that. Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) @CommotioCerebri: if the article's talk page is not enough, more public venues that could bring attention to the article would be one of the noticeboards, like WP:RSN to discuss sources, WP:POVN for neutrality issues or WP:FTN for fringe issues. There is also WP:3O to request third party opinion. I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate – 01:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I've run into a little problem on the Adam and Eve talk page with an editor you're taking to ANI. Just wondering if you're aware that article is protected so no one can make corrections? Would you be interested in reading my exchange with this editor on the talk page for Adam and Eve and on my talk page? Thanks. Nameshmame (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. What you are doing here is called WP:CANVASSING and it is not OK. You should read dispute resolution and use one of the procedures there to resolve the dispute you are in. Jytdog (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll pass on that. Wikipedia stole two years of my life beginning in 2009. I just thought this correction was worth fighting for, but you people are not going to suck me in again. "This is not OK" indeed! Nameshmame (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

people going and finding "allies" and bringing them to the site of conflict in order to "win" is not what this place is about. what you did above is a human thing to do, which is why the community wrote CANVASSING to guide away from that and DR to guide toward what people should do. i do understand that it is hard to figure out the way you should do things. Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

If that's what you think I was doing that's your problem. In fact this whole diabolical pseudo-encyclopedia is your problem. Have fun with it! Nameshmame (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Jytdog,

Started editing another page, Posaconazole. I have toned down the intro paragraph and also Medical uses & Pharmacology requires an expert editing. Can you give a look at it? Sundartripathi (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Will do later. You can do this! Just follow MEDRS and MEDMOS. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Edited the page Jytdog, now an expert review is required. Sundartripathi (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

That was a fine start -- keep at it! There are old primary sources there, and there is no Adverse events section -- you can fix that stuff! Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback on my recent responses to certain edit requests. To suggest that someone "doesn't know how Wikipedia works," clearly shows that you have not looked at my complete page history as well as my talk page history for other messages. Just FYI, because you seemed very demeaning to me in your second message to me overnight.

Also, I'd like to give you a tip for future requests in case you didn't know. AnomieBOT keeps track of these edit requests, which is how I've been replying to some edit requests. Since I'm extended-confirmed, I am currently keeping track of the tables at EPERTable, SPERTable, and EDITREQTable (the latter of which in the past month has been heavily backlogged.) This is how I've been responding to edit requests, much of them with the mistake of reading too fast, as you suggested in my first message to me. There's also TPERTable in case your permissions allow you to respond to such edit requests. Good luck with future responses to requests! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I will start reviewing your other responses. If they are as bad as these two were - which were in no way good, something is going to have to change. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed you have been discussing Rigvir article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RIGVIR), and I was wondering if you could have a look at the article now and maybe advise on further improvements or corrections? I checked the article revision and discussion history, tried to clean it up, removed the unsourced claims and added some new sources from Latvian media, but as a Wiki beginner I am not certain these would be accepted as a good source or considered a breach of original research rule, POV rule, and I would really appreciate a second opinion or guidance. Any thoughts or advice?--KC LV (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I will do. Working on that article has been on my to-do list for a long time.Jytdog (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Re the IP editor on an admin's talkpage today, the past contribs match the claimed identity. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah i noticed that too... :) Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The conversation never happened, you saw swamp gas from a weather balloon trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus. I'm just a little creeped out. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi again,

I have been reviewing WP:MEDMOS as you have suggested, Is it correct to mention the price of a drug? It appears like a peacock term indirectly promoting drug over other competitive drugs. Another drug page of Pfizer, clearly needs your expert attention. Apologizes for bothering you again and again. Sundartripathi (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

There are some editors who are very concerned about drug pricing for various reason and add content about drug pricing. Sometimes that is because it is very expensive and that was discussed in sources; others do this about generic drugs (for instance, public health authorities can use this content to help them make decisions). This is fine to include as long as it reliably sourced and summarizes what the sources say. This content goes in the "Society and culture" section and sometimes that content is also summarized in the LEAD. That is all fine. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It's generally best to add pricing when it is sourced to secondary sources that comment about the pricing, but not when the only sourcing is the manufacturer themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello and hope all is well. You were really helpful to me when I was starting out and I really appreciate your polite and friendly manner and I know that what you say is constructive not destructive. I thought I saw a comment from you about the article I resubmitted as above. But I can't find it now. Am I seeing things? Anyway to sum up I thought you said (very nicely) that you thought I was too close to the subject and that I had even filled in links to FB and twitter. I thought it was good to put external links at the bottom? I am absolutely fine to remove them. Also yes I am close to the subject but I genuinely and deeply believe that this is as valuable as many of the pages I see all the time. However I seem to have a style or manner problem so could you please, please, please help me edit it for me so it passes muster? Even if it ends up at this time as just a few lines? Of course, I am sure you are really busy with your own work and edits so quite understand if you can't help.

I have so many ideas of things I want to write about and edit but I am feeling there is no point if it just ends up being an exercise in failure so I want to get this right before moving on.

Many thanks for any help you can give me.ECURBEC (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I commented on the draft talk page. Please do see WP:ELNO about the social media links. I'll take a crack at the draft later today or tomorrow. Jytdog (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Your recent additions on the article Book of Joshua could use further copyediting. You describe a city as "an early battled". Should this be battlefield? Dimadick (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, will go look again! Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Greetings! An account has been messing around with the finalized wording on the recent ancient Egyptian DNA analysis. Could you please have a look here? Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

hi, you considered that the link to 'rockstart' was spam, but the rationale comes from elsewhere: see this discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:AI_accelerator_(computer_hardware)#This_article_needs_a_better_title

from this article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_accelerator_(computer_hardware)

now referenced from this DAB to clear things up (as per the request)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_accelerator

it might have looked like it was spamming 'rockstart' but listing others would make it more neutral? (e.g. https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/13/zeroth-ai/ https://medium.com/cyber-tales/unsupervised-investments-ii-a-guide-to-ai-accelerators-and-incubators-4dc762d57c4b

Tangentially it's also bugging me that this article has the term 'hardware accelerator' which also bring ambiguity to a computer hardware term. MfortyoneA (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I hear you on the terminology. I fixed the problem at the disambig article. It is not clear to me that the startup accelerator article should exist - most of the sourcing is very bad and it should probably merged into the incubator article.. Will look later today. gotta do RW stuff now. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

There's an article in Breitbart "Wikipedia’s Left-Wing Editors Attempt to Minimize Evidence Supporting Google Memo" that mentions your user name as well as User:NorthBySouthBaranof and User:Nanite, purportedly written by User:The Devil's Advocate. I'm just letting you know that this has been published, but if there is anything I can do to help, e.g. if you view the article as harassment, please let me know.

Sincerely, Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm adding pings here to Aquillion and Volunteer Marek, who are also mentioned there. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

there's an ani discussion about it already too. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to tell you thank you for catching that Steve Friesan quote. It was from the original article and I thought I had caught all of those--but that might not be the only one I missed! I went through and checked every reference--but have not checked everything that failed to be referenced. You really are a great editor. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Returning the favor...

Thank you for sharing your oppinions on my talk page. I havent forgotten about the article "Schizophrenia", yet. :) To show here in short, how it is nonNPOV, here another little link: ^[1]

I am well and able to discuss said article and the article alone (along with a COI within the authors conscience and scientific reasoning), but the provided link should show for now, that there is another "accepted scientific reasoning", than the cherry picked mix of primary works, it is now. If nobody consents on an unbiased rewrite, i will either show an alternate citation to each false claim within the current article or propose an alternate rewrite on my own ( or do nothing at all or both). :)

Writing as a "Survivor of Psychiatry" (as of yet :)) :

--Nradabhatse die Katze (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Concrete proposals for content, sourced per MEDRS, are very welcome! Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for playing nice, i will study "MEDRS" immediately and take it into account, but want to add that this (mental health and modern psychiatry) is bigger than a few rules of conduct). For example, this article is very good: <html>https://www.madinamerica.com/2017/05/psychiatry-defends-its-antipsychotics-case-study-of-institutional-corruption/</html> ... but wikirules probably dont like the site and it is good but original research. Would it help to cite the mentioned books? Nradabhatse die Katze (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but i cannot find "MEDRS", if you could link it, please. But i took a short look at NOR and apparently, it doesnt relate to talk pages. :) So i think i had the right to be a bit angry, but want to say sorry, for being derogative to you and LiteratureGeek, anyway... Nradabhatse die Katze (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Another article by the same author, this time with many valid citations, i guess... <html>https://www.madinamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/The-Case-Against-Antipsychotics.pdf</html> I could write a good "critic"-section for "schizophrenia" and "neuroleptics" from that, but would recommend to rewrite the "schizophrenia" to include the times before modern psychiatry, if it is possible. Nradabhatse die Katze (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS. This applies to content about diseases/conditions, treatment, epidemiology, and the like -- statements of fact about health, including mental health. Descriptions of history (e.g. the history of psychiatric treatments) need sourcing per plain old WP:RS. As you know the ideas in Mad in America are not mainstream (it positions itself as attempting to reform the mainstream). Please be aware of the WP:NPOV policy - we give what we call "weight" (space and emphasis) to views according to their weight in the literature. So non-mainstream views by definition get less weight. Every editor is obligated to engage with all the literature, not just a sliver of it. That is the hard work and rigor of editing WP. I hope that makes sense... Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again, i will learn all three links, but meant that these articles hold many scientific valid citations (i could use them and take their inner citations with the same outcome). Also "weight in the literature" is not very scientific, as is "mainstream", for example i am well aware that the "dopamine-hypothesys" has many papers citing it, but it is already debunked by older (cited above) but very valid literature. In addition, NPOV surely should encompass critic views of "mainstream", but i would be happy with a small critic/alternate views section as i am lazy as ****, anyway. :) It would be nice if you would read the "MIA" articles, when you find the time to see what i mean with "very valid" and such. In addition, i was sent two other links i want to backup and address here: <html>http://criticalpsychiatry.co.uk/index.php/articles/35-documents/46-the-case-against-schizophrenia?fref=gc</html> <html>http://jpn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/31-2-93.pdf?fref=gc</html> Off course, you can "cut&copy" this whole paragraph to the schizophrenia talk page, if you wish. Happy Sunday, Nradabhatse die Katze (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, "MEDRS" might stifle us a bit, but we will cope with that. The WHO on the subject:<html>http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44219/1/9789241598774_eng.pdf</html> Nradabhatse die Katze (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC) I cite from "Sumarize scientific consensus": "Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers." (This should allow for the inclusion of the above mentioned sources, but i need to read on...) Nradabhatse die Katze (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC) Per "MEDRS-Assess evidence quality", i include articles on toxicity: <html>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25802081</html> <html>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1150265/</html> On TRS and clozapine: <html>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26842482</html> On minimal use of neuroleptics: <html>https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/10/a-guide-to-minimal-use-of-neuroleptics/</html> Nradabhatse die Katze (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC) Some citations on the prevalence of traumata in mental health and a very good read for outsiders: <html>https://www.madinamerica.com/2017/06/mad-psychologist-speaks-out/</html> Oldd, but a review article: <html>http://www.critpsynet.freeuk.com/Boyle.htm</html> Nradabhatse die Katze (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC) A collection of links, to be regarded for inclusion: <html>http://home.broadpark.no/~wkeim/files/open_letter_knowledge.html</html> Nradabhatse die Katze (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC) A very definitive statement from the UN :: <html>http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2017/discrimination-in-health-care/en/</html> Nradabhatse die Katze (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

What is the specific content you are looking to add? These drug articles all have sections on side effects.. Do not post any more links to madinamerica here please. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

He/she is an WP:ACTIVIST. He/she is not interested in playing by the rules of Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for taking the time to look at my edit requests at Talk:Porter_Novelli. I know you felt my requests were insufficiently neutral, but I’m hoping you’ll be willing to take a second look at a few of them—the infobox, the lead and the History section. I believe these edits would add sources and accurate information to parts of the article that are currently underdeveloped. Hopefully we can reach an agreement. Thank you! AngelaMPena (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll make an additional reply there. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I inserted a section about surgery costs here. You reverted my changed with the comment "unreliable source". What does that mean? The source is a page maintained by a specialist in his field with dozens of years of experience, best references (see here and a chair in an association of leg experts (Gesellschaft für Fuß- und Sprunggelenkchirurgie e.V. (GFFC), see here). If that's not trusty what else? What do you mean?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Basbert (talk • contribs) 14:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

in general having content about costs is fine. with regard to the source... the people selling the "precise nail" have been adding spam and promotional content to this article and its predecessors for years as have various individual doctors. We are not using spam like limblengtheningsurgery.com as a reference. Please see WP:PROMO and if you have a relationship with the specialist or his practice or the people selling the precise nail device, please disclose it per WP:COI and WP:PAID. Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		I witnessed you doing this more than once. Thank you for your excellent work. —PaleoNeonate – 23:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

That's kind of you, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: You just posted a warning about possible COI and paid editing to my user talk page. For the record, I am not a paid Wikipedia editor for ANY cause, and I have no conflict of interest relevant to Medical Marijuana, Inc.; indeed, I had never even heard of that company before I found its article in the AfD list a few days ago. I am an inclusionist, and I believe that deletion of articles is frequently harmful to Wikipedia, a policy I have applied to articles on a number of topics. Despite being phrased overtly as helpful advice, I believe your warning amounted to a personal attack, in that it insinuated baselessly that the edits you quoted gave you reason to suspect me of being a paid editor. As such, I have deleted it from my talk page. Please do not repeat any such personal attack. —Syrenka V (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for answering the question that I asked here. The question is not a personal attack and was not intended to be one. There is nothing wrong being an "inclusionist" - there is something very wrong with adding very low quality sources and promotional content to articles. You are pretty new here and you will learn to do better with time, I am sure! Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

As to promotional content: I acknowledged from the first that Medical Marijuana, Inc. was written like an advertisement, and I think few if any of the links from the company website that you removed will be missed. One the whole, your rewrite improved the article, and may even have saved it from deletion. On the other hand, I cannot agree about sources like The Motley Fool or TheStreet. I actually did search the archives of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for evaluations of The Motley Fool before using it as a source, and found nothing; I would not have used it if I had found a consensus that it was "low quality". I don't see any fundamental difference between these online sources and a printed magazine like Fast Company—or even Forbes and Fortune. Business reporting is business reporting; inevitably it will be written to inform readers whose overriding concern is with how to invest their money. Nor is there yet any consensus against online stock magazines as sources, not as I read WP:Consensus. And COI-warning users who try to rely on them is hardly the way to create such a consensus—especially when, as in my case, the material from these sources is largely unfavorable to the company in question.

—Syrenka V (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

If you bring penny-stock flogging websites like those to RSN they will get shot down in a heart beat. They are subject to all kinds of manipulative bullshit.

About the question I asked. I have !voted "keep" so I am on your "side" in the AfD, and the intention of asking you the question - and it was a question - was to ask. I don't know the answer. Many conflicted/paid editors are actually not aware of our policies and guidelines in that area. So get over yourself and stop complaining. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I've added a quote from you here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! You are pulling out some themes there. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The following "Modern scholars therefore see the population of these states Israel and Judah arising relatively peacefully and internally from existing people in the highlands of Canaan.[26]" is a fair statement of what the source says. You have inserted (pretending to "correct" but actually re-inserting a clearly false version) an extremely POV wording while also removing the POV tag. Then you are trying to intimidate other editors by accusing them of edit wars. The only revert was to the version that NO ONE objected to and which only minimally corrects the quote. The expanded paragraphs (to resolve the POV) are on the talk page. If you can't respond to those or improve them, leave this article alone. Your edit, which was a revert to what amounts to a misquote, leaves the article claiming that "Israel" (whatever that means, it means many things) "arose peacefully" - in direct contradiction to all literary sources and archaeologists finding walled cities, etc. You can't leave the article in that state, whatever you think of my edits. Fix it or get lost. 19:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk)

Two things. Please discuss content at the article Talk page. Also, what you have written there is incoherent. You are obviously passionate about this, but it is hard to understand a) exactly what you want to change, and most importantly b) what sources you are citing. Please be sure to cite reliable sources for the changes you want to see, and please engage what the currently used sources say. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jytdog,

thank you for the advice on WP:PAID and WP:COI - much appreciated. I edited the page hastily as I felt strongly about the edits from the user Bjerrebæk.

However, I would still ask you to assess the points I made, and consider to alter the entry. In particular, the following sentence "MDPI is especially known for the controversy surrounding its inclusion on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing companies" is made without a reference and there are no grounds for this claim.

Best, Alistair — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErskineCer (talk • contribs) 09:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome. Please look at the article again. Btw per PAID would you please add a disclosure to your userpage (User:ErskineCer - a redlink, as you have not written anything there yet). Just something simple like "I work at MDPI and have a conflict of interest for that topic and related ones" would be fine. thx Jytdog (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes I had not completed the setup before -- updated now at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ErskineCer — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErskineCer (talk • contribs) 09:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I could not see that you ever replied to my question and it would just be helpful if you could let me know how to post my request edits if not via the talk page - as you had advised earlier. Many thanks, --Princessella123 (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, I had a few rounds of discussion with you for User_talk:Jytdog#Voriconazole, User_talk:Jytdog#Posaconazole and User_talk:Jytdog#Fluconazole. I have blocked a sock farm at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeniseJZ/Archive, which included two groups, one of company's previous founder and the current company. Now the blocked sock has accused me of COI, which I don't have. What is the best way to handle this situation? Details are at User_talk:DeniseJZ#Sundartripathi_has_COI. I have been accused of COI at View's AFD by Jd22292, check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/View, Inc.. Digging into the deep details, adding a competitor section, mentioniong the first founder in the infobox has been a reason behind this, what is the best suggestion for me? Sundartripathi (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Well first of all you can ignore an indefinitely blocked editor's efforts to edit by proxy. I have avoided looking at the article deeply up to now, exactly because my attention was called to it invalidly. Now that you have called my attention to it, I will look at it. At this point i have no comment on whether your editing there shows an WP:APPARENTCOI. When I look at it, I will let you know if I have any concerns. The best thing for you to do is to respond once (honestly) and then just carry on. If someone thinks you are not being honest there are ways to escalate that, and if you feel you are being hounded there are ways to escalate that as well. But getting into a one-on-one back and forth is not the way to go.

I have asked Jd22292 to strike their comments at the AfD for reasons other than what you discuss above. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for all this, this is again a great learning. I will again deep dive into the fundamentals of Wikipedia. Sundartripathi (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog,

Thank you for the work you did on the Spinal cord stimulator page. I am an instructor for a course that saw medical students providing updates to medical pages. I noticed that you deleted everything on the talk page for the article. I am new to Wikipedia myself - Is it incorrect to post edits to a talk page regarding a plan to update the page as the student did?

Thank you for helping me understand Wikipedia.

Mgiulietti (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

When classes use the Talk page like that it bothers regular editors, generally. I try to ignore it but got irritated. I will restore it. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I hope all is well for you. Can you please help with a WP:COI and WP:PAID issue? I am paid by novelist Carl Hiaasen to manage his online presence and he has asked me specifically to post a photo of him that was previously posted on the page Carl_Hiaasen. Another editor removed it, citing possible copyright concerns (i.e., the photo may have been posted without copyright holder's permission). Both Hiaasen and the photographer (his son) grant permission to use the photo on that page, and nobody has specifically claimed a copyright violation, just stated concerns that the photo may have been posted without permission. Hiaasen specifically asked me to have it posted there again. As you suggested regarding earlier edits to this page, I followed the "Making edit requests" steps as per WP:COI and requested this edit on Talk:Carl_Hiaasen on 11 August, but I haven't been able to gather consensus as nobody has responded. Can you please have a look at this? Thanks, Seanjsavage (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note. For anything other than obviously public domain stuff, I find the the application of the copyright policy at the commons to be .... opaque at best. In my view the most simple and most auditable way to handle this kind of thing would be to have Hiaasen and his son post it on a personal website, with a clear indication that the son owns the copyright, and a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license grant by the son right there on that webpage. Then you or anyone can download it and you can upload it to the commons using the Commons upload wizard, and at the license page in that wizard you can cite the website and CC4 license grant there. That is how to get the image into the Commons. As for adding it to the article I suggest that you can probably do that yourself, with an edit note saying you are editing for pay, and leave a note on the talk page, saying the same. If anybody else doesn't like the picture then talk about it, and do not edit war if someone removes it. Hiassen doesn't get to choose the picture used at the article - the editing community decides that. Does that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) What Jytdog says could work; otherwise, two simple steps:

• the photographer (the son) should upload it to Commons as "own work"
• and then follow the steps at Commons:Email templates.

He should receive an automated reply. If the reference number ("ticket number", starting 2017…) from that reply is posted here or on my talk-page, I'll try to follow it through. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying that other process! I was trying to avoid the email-y stuff. :) Jytdog (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks folks. Seanjsavage (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

PANS page requests pharmacology expert and as PhD in that subject I added something. What is your expertise for reverting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talk • contribs) 16:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

If you would like to discuss content, I would be happy to discuss on the relevant talk page, where I posted two days ago: Talk:Pan-assay_interference_compounds#Note. Your question about my expertise and your claims about your own are not appropriate, as you will learn when you have been around longer. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

When a page advises need for pharmacology expertise then my question about your expertise is VERY appropriate, and you show how wierd you are to revert me and refuse to show expertise.

For you to be snooping through my past is wrong in so many ways and for you to not realize it shows how corrupt you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talk • contribs) 18:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Please do read WP:EXPERT with regard to the whole expertise thing. As for the rest, I replied to that at your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Don’t shrink me. I gave you NO authority to examine my editing record to psychoanalyze me. You abused your position.

It is obvious now that you were perfectly capable of editing my edit WITHOUT reverting, and the fact that you reverted repeatedly proves that YOU instigated this edit war, not I. YOU are the abuser, and I am disgusted with your abusive manipulative behavior.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talk • contribs) 02:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I had the same experience with you Jytdog about Tocopherol and Vitamin E subjects; I agree you are an abuser of some kind of privilege that is part of this perverse mechanism, i.e. "reverting"! I notice you that you are doing this toward contributions like me who are well-recognized experts in the field! I posted relevant info on these subjects and not just personal citations as you quoted in your talks (the text was regarding the rolo of vitamin E on therapy of NASH and citations were about RCT and studies from other Authors). You manipulate things and this is a problem for the community of Wikipedia, somebody should stop you, but I do not have time to waste with you perversions. 141.250.63.189 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

You still have not read WP:MEDRS, have you.... Jytdog (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

could you discuss why this site, sciNote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SciNote) does not get pinged as unsourced marketing or promotional or considered marketing language Teamscience (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. You said you would like to have a go at re-writing this. I had already started but it's such one heck of a WoT that it's hard to know what to cut out without offending he original authors of it. 00:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I will ~boldly~ take a shot now... Jytdog (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

If I may interject. The page is a nightmare from a user experience point of view. Show it to a novice and ask them "what is the first thing you do here"? If they don't answer "click Article Wizard" within 5 seconds then it's wrong. The Article Wizard link is buried and followed by pages, literally pages, of additional text. Subsequent pages aren't any better -- the next thing you're supposed to do is search for an existing article. Guess what? It's a dead end at the search results page.

You may create the page "Foofleberries".
There were no results matching the query.

Pretty friendly huh? Never leave the user staring at an error message. To make it even better, now you have to click the back button and answer "yes I found" or the reverse. So we both tell the user they're an idiot, and demonstrate that the designer of the UX is an idiot as well. This whole thing should just be re-done with user journey concepts. This site explains how, also ACM describes user stories here, and chapter 7 of Jon Kolko's Exposing the Magic of Design is also good. Unfortunately for us, it is a specialist task for UX experts (which I am decidedly not, more of a systems guy). ☆ Bri (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Oy way over my head. who can do it?? Jytdog (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Not to be a negativist but amateurs can just take small shots at the existing text without making a radical overhaul -- polishing a turd, if you will. IMHO we should think big; Wikipedia deserves world class stuff for this critical area, and sadly I don't see much world-class engineering and design here. But if the budget is large, Frogdesign comes to mind. There are some other names in this article. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I wrote my first full-length from-scratch article in October 2008, when it looked something like this: . I don't know how it grew to such bloated proportions. Softlavender (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

aren't you something! I just stole that big beautiful yellow bordered search box. Jytdog (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe as a stopgap we could figure out a way to create an Article Wizard link (pref. a big button) on the search page when entered via this path. At least then, the user doesn't get a dead-end page with no further instructions. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

OH now I see what you mean! Hm. Well hopefully they would have the sense to go back to the YFI site to see what to do next. But I see what you mean about the flow... My sense is that changing that page would involve the people who do "search"... not sure that is feasible. ... ?Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Have pinged the WMF engineering team offline – will report back with results.

I'm pretty sure we will be directed to Mw:How to report a bug#Reporting a new bug or feature request. In anticipation, have created T173988. This conversation is linked from the request. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Update. The Phabricator task seems to have been misunderstood as a request for WMF to redo the Article Wizard. If anybody can tell me how to improve it (maybe w graphics?) please advise. Meantime (thanks to DESiegel) I found Template:7STEPS which is a nice dovetail. A meta-process that wraps Article Wizard, perhaps. Worth consideration if we are thinking big in terms of a total article construction workflow overhaul based on best practices. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I started having a look at using a guided tour to return the user to the Article Wizard after being shown the search results. An example of what this could look like is available when visiting this link -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hm, two wierd things about that. The little flag is sticky, and now pops up every time I visit a new page! (How do i get that off me!!??) and it is a one-off for that page, so if I close it so i can read what it is obscuring, i am bereft of its help (we do want people to read the search results!) Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Re-visit this link and click the tick (that was a bug). As for it obscuring the results, I'll try moving it elsewhere.. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Update #2: Extension:GuidedTour was also suggested by WMF Engineering, I will update them on our results... they suggested we may need some engineering "to allow parameters to be passed to the search page". I can continue to be the conduit to engineering via Phabricator, or other people feel free to add comments there. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I have added AFD at Housejoy, created through AFC. Can you fix AFD template on it? It is used only for Online presence without adding value, doesn't pass WP:GNG, all news for only funding. Sundartripathi (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

done. Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Due to the interaction with Joobo i have reread in particular the Alternative for Germany article, in both english and german, and noticed that their ideology in the english language article does not include antifeminism like it does in the german article. Well sourced there, 4 different sources for it. Have only read two of the sources as the other two are books. One qoute in a source is "Together with fundamentalist Christians, supported by key elements of conservative media and programmatically taking up the theme, the Alternative Party of Germany (AfD – Partei Alternative für Deutschland), is stirring up feelings against the quota for women, abortion and “gender madness”.", in regards to feminism, obviously, for example. The other has a similar theme with one direct qoute by an AfD person from facebook stating he finds "the ideology idiotic" or how "reason" should be put above ""gender madness""(whatever the term "Genderwahn" even means, useless anglicism in german, how i hate them haha) all the while "finding true womanhood beautiful". Unsure how to access the book sources though. Would just assume that all the sources are reliable anyway knowing the germans love for rules and order and the contentius nature of the topic. The main body goes into it as well in the german article as does it in the english one to a degree. But anyway, i am getting ahead of myself... i have looked at a couple recent archives on the talk page and have seen nothing in regards to the matter. You think it would be possible or even prudent to hold an RfC on the topic? Just find it a bit odd that one includes it and the other does not, assuming the rules of the german wikipedia are very similar or even the same to the english one in regards to sourcing.(not actually sure about that as i don't lurk there but one would assume i guess) So anyway, your oppinion on the matter would be valued. 91.49.76.201 (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind the issue regarding the book sources, i was just being stupid and blind. Availible through google books. 91.49.76.201 (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

If you would like to post this at the article talk page, i would be happy to discuss it there. Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Will do later today or tomorrow then. No rush in the end. Just did not want to do anything stupid or raise something that had been talked over recently and me missing it by being blind etc. Might even make an account then even if i resisted it and did not want to for... a very long time lol 91.49.71.123 (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Rose (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

You have added links to chemistry to a whole slew of articles. Please go back through and self revert. The content in that site is user generated, and such cites are not reliable in Wikipedia per WP:USERGENERATED (the same reason that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source here) Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

copying response left at my talk page in this diff here, to keep the discussion in one place Jytdog (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Please note that the references I have added are all well-sourced, see e.g. Roderick MacKinnon. The sources Academic Tree provides specifically address the issue of mentorship. For Roderick MacKinnon it happens to give an interesting titbit of insight, i.e. that the controversial Gilbert Ling was his academic 'ancestor'.
Please respect my contributions to Wikipedia. Thanks. Michaele and Tareq (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

No, the link violates the WP:USERGENERATED guideline. You have not dealt with that. Please do. Jytdog (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog is correct, please revert. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, I don't agree. Basically what this is about is sources, there need to be references to reliable outside sources, and the links I added all contain such references. Also, the sites I added were authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff.

Just for argument's sake, compare that to the Mathematics Genealogy Project. A quick search by Google reveals that there are something like 6,000 to 8,000 references to Mathematics Genealogy in Wikipedia. There is even a Template:MathGenealogy to facilitate adding such references. Yet, Mathematics Genealogy does not disclose its sources, so we don't now where their information came from, and how reliable those sources are. Clearly, the Academic Tree maintains a higher standard than that since it does disclose its sources, so everybody can examine those sources, and decide how reliable those sources are.

Please consider this question: Why do you think that references to Mathematics Genealogy are acceptable as a source, but Academic Tree is not? Why is it that you hold Academic Tree to an higher standard than Mathematics Genealogy? Michaele and Tareq (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog. I know this is going backwards and forwards between talk pages, but have you got rid of all the spam links? I looked at the user contribs, and each of the ones I looked at, you had done the removal. I'm happy to do it, if it still needs doing. Good work btw. -Roxy the dog. bark 10:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes Roxy I got them, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Michaele and Tareq you are quoting from part of USERGENERATED now so that is useful. Here is what the "about" for Academic Tree page says: "The Academic Family Tree is a nonprofit, user content-driven web database that aims to accurately document and publicly share the academic genealogy of current and historical researchers across all fields of academia. As a modern web application, The Academic Family Tree leverages the knowledge of thousands of individual users into a single, self-correcting database. Access to Tree sites is free, and users are able to contribute content directly." And at the bottom of each page, it says "Is someone missing from the tree? Register/sign in to make changes." That is precisely what Wikipedia is like; there is no editorial staff between the user base and the content. So I don't understand your claim that the entries at the site were authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff. Please explain. To address your question about the difference with the Math project, here is the form where you submit data to the editorial staff which reviews it and then implements it. The process used at the two projects is different, and that is why they are viewed differently when analyzed under WP:RS.

The nature of your editing and the quality of this discussion is also starting to raise issues of WP:APPARENTCOI. There are many academics who want to cite their own papers or projects in Wikipedia; people have a range of motivations for this behavior from frank self-promotion to an honest belief that the thing they created has value that they want to share, and humans being what they are, often there are a range of things mixed together. But like all COI, that kind of COI leads to conversations that are just ... weird. If you have some connection with academic tree, it would be useful if you would disclose that connection. Jytdog (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

For instance your moving this thread here was... weird. Weird. But I don't mind as a lot more people will see it now. Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the question why you think that Mathematics Genealogy is acceptable, but Academic Tree is not. As said, Mathematics Genealogy does not disclose its sources, and we are left in the dark about how reliable those sources are. One the other and, Academic Tree does disclose its sources, and everybody is free to look at those and investigate how reliable they are. It is really about reliable independent outside sources.

Have a look yourself: compare the entry for August Föppl on Mathematics Genealogy with his entry on Academic Tree and see for yourself which one is more reliable, and in particular which one is more careful about sources. Or compare Johannes Peter Müller on Mathematics Genealogy with his entry on Academic Tree. Or Gustav Kirchhoff on Mathematics Genealogy compared to his entry on Academic Tree. And and so on.

But this isn't really about Mathematics Genealogy or Academic Tree or reliability of sources or whatever; it isn't even about me, no it is about you and the way you are treating other Wikipedians. From the moment you happened to come across one of my edits you jumped to the conclusion that I am a spammer, and you have been harassing me ever since. Yet, if you had thought about it for more than one second it should have occurred to you that I am not. Just think about it: If I were really a spammer I would have taken care to cover my tracks; you know very well that there are plenty of ways to do that. Just the fact that that I am straightforward about what I do should give you plenty of reasons to give this a second thought.

A while ago I noticed that many Wikipedia articles about scientists do make mention of academic advisor(s). In most cases it does not provide any reference to its sources, it a sort of comes out of the blue with no reference at all. In many cases the the Wikipedia article is simply wrong about it. It is really a mess out there.

So I decided to do something about it, using the most reliable resource that it out there. If Academic Tree and the Wikipedia article were in agreement I didn't spend much time one it. But if I found a disagreement I investigated the issue a bit more careful, and decided for myself who was right and who was wrong. In every single case I found a discrepancy Academic Tree was right and the Wikipedia article was wrong. So I made corrections as needed.

What you have done by vandalizing my contributions to Wikipedia it that you have restored the mistakes I so laboriously uncovered, and meticulously corrected.

This really it a prime example of what is wrong with Wikipedia: People with the necessary know-how to make a difference in improving Wikipedia articles are routinely harassed to the point that they give up and quit.

What you should do is stop harassing me, apologize for the way you have been treating me, and undo the mess you have caused by vandalizing my contributions to Wikipedia. Michaele and Tareq (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I did explain the difference between the sites, with respect to the way that sources are analyzed here in Wikipedia. It is a process issue; the way data is entered and changed. This method of analyzing sources is the outcome of 16 years of community discussion - we call this "consensus". The foundation of this place is that consensus-building process. That is how the policy and guidelines have developed.

The analysis is not difficult nor is the result ambiguous, here in Wikipedia. If you disagree, please ask others at WP:RSN if academic tree is USERGENERATED or not. If you continue trying to add links to academic tree without consensus, you will likely end up blocked.

That said, I very much appreciate the effort you have taken to ensure the accuracy of data about academic advisors; you just need to use acceptable sources. Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

If the current proposal doesn't gain consensus, please do try again with a refined one. If the wording could be cut further (says the most tumid guy around), it would probably garner more support. Using WP:VPPOL might be worth a try, for increased breadth of editorial input. Ping: Masem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

"tumid"! Nice. :) Masem did post it and it sat there a pretty good long while... But thanks - i think a lot of people care about this and it will come back around. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This isn't something I often say, but I agree entirely with SMcCandlish. Per my comment on my talk, it's clear that much of the opposition is coming from people who don't understand the proposal and think it's a proposal to ban coverage of current events, rather than a proposal to ban giving undue weight to the opinions of whoever happens to be first to comment on a given event. ‑ Iridescent 23:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Good nutshell, or problem statement, to re-use.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey I really have been trying to understand you.I appreciate that you are trying to help, but now you are going out of line.Since you wont communicate with me it has to be solved somehow else.

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

Cheers mate! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

—== The issue here ==

The issue of all this is your approach. I believe you want to try to participate in the Project, but you are not communicating. Instead all I can see are endless criticism but no solution.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Clearly you and i don't share an understanding of the mission of Wikipedia nor of the policies and guidelines that have made this project possible. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you need to consider that also WP:IAR has certain advantages to improve Wikipedia, especially the WikiProject Investment which is trying to set new standards and guidelines for articles.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

IAR is for doing Picasso-like things; Picasso mastered the fundamentals first. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Well what fundamentals are missing in my case? Cheers mate.WikiEditCrunch (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Please see the responses you have gotten at ANI. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The only thing mentioned there was the threating (which is a pretty small thing).Look I do not want to make this a bigger issue.So maybe you should come to a conclusion of your arguments regarding to the WikiProject Investment so that we can end this dispute. Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

(by talk page stalker) @WikiEditCrunch: The best thing for you to do is see that you were wrong, apologize to Jytdog for wrongly starting an ANI thread, and then maybe take a break from Wikipedia for a while. The more you continue to press this, the worse it looks. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:No one is right or wrong here.It is also not about how it looks.What matters is just ending this dispute and moving on.I personally think it is not that big of deal. Cheers.WikiEditCrunch (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You made a complaint at ANI. That's no small thing. Your fellow editors are learning about you as an editor based upon these interactions. I think you're a good-faith editor but you seem to have sought vengeance when you felt wronged. That effort is resulting in a boomerang and now you're back-pedaling. Why not just admit you miscalculated and drop it? Perhaps you'd like more editors at ANI to look into your editing? Chris Troutman (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

AN/I has been closed.

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog. I was interested in this comment. Where do you see a "change of policy" in my proposal? --John (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

How we enforce BLP, generally. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

So are you in favour of not enforcing the rules we have, then? I would argue we should enforce them properly and rubbish like this would not occur. --John (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

That would be a bad faith, fake interpretation of what I mean. You can strike that, or stay off my page. I do not tolerate bullshit here on my Talk page, not from anyone, and especially not from admins who should know better, and behave better. I am happy to discuss things, but not on that kind of basis. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog:

You asked me to explain my position on the WHO circumcision paper, which is cited in the foreskin article.

1. One problem is that is mostly about circumcision and only tangentially about the foreskin.

2. The paper was written expressly to promote circumcision because at that time they believed that circumcision would prevent HIV infection. (It doesn't.)

3. Being written to promote circumcision, it does not say very much about the foreskin and its functions. In other words, it tends to be biased against the foreskin, which it sees as being the portal for HIV infection.

4. I suppose my real objection is the use of the word "debates" in the foreskin article. If they are debating, it means that they don't know the facts about the foreskin.

5. I would be content to reword that sentence to get rid of the word "debates".

Sugarcube73 (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Please post this on the relevant talk page and I will reply there. These kinds of discussions should happen at the article talk page, so everybody involved can participate and so it becomes part of the page's history. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you have a notice at the top of your talkpage (or a WP:editnotice) asking people to discuss changes to an article on the associated talkpage, rather than on your user talk page? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Do people actually follow those? But sure I will try it. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Before I rush off to add back the material, is this what I am supposed to do? I followed your instructions, word for word.Petergstrom (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

yep you got it now. thanks!!!! Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, as to the question I have in a section from a couple of weeks ago about the use of images, are you willing to discuss it now?Petergstrom (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I will go up there and look at it now. Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

While my TBAN doesn't expire until the 27th of this month, I was wondering if photo like this would be usable as an article image. It says that it is "Open access distributed under the creative commons license", but I just want to check. Thanks ahead of time Petergstrom (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

A TBAN means you don't deal with this stuff, at all. Happy to discuss this when the TBAN is over. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I was just curious as to the wikipedia policy, surely that isn't part of the TBAN??Petergstrom (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Part of your TBAN was because you refuse to listen to other people and to actually pay attention to community norms. You have not learned anything, it seems. Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I was just clarifying what you said. I wasn't sure if I had clearly written what I intended to, or if this was actually a part of the policy. My bad.Petergstrom (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

My TBAN is up. Would you be wiling to discuss this question now?Petergstrom (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I ~think~ that is usable. I find the commons to be unpredictable but if you follow the license terms there (cite the journal!) then i think it will be OK. It would be a good faith try, even if it ultimately gets removed for some reason. 00:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi sorry I am new, I couldn't find this page before. How can I edit ritodrine to include the fact that when children reach adolescence they may develop mental health issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjingjie (talk • contribs) 19:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I was reading your excellent userpage essay on paid editing, and I had a thought about it. I agree that paid editors are exploiting the work of volunteer editors, because we have to check their work, even when it technically falls within Wikipedia's guidelines. What if we flip that premise, and require that paid editors, before working on matters for which they are getting paid, must make some number of voluntary edits purely for the benefit of the encyclopedia - fixing disambiguation links and other common errors, creating articles to fulfill longstanding non-commercial red-links, vetting sources in randomly selected articles, that sort of thing. What do you think? bd2412 T 21:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I think that it would be unenforceable, and would tend to further push paid editors underground. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reading and for your kind words! I keep trying to surface and clarify things in my own head...

There is all kind of gate-keeping I would love to have for Wikipedia editors generally. I am happy about the AFC trial for example. Training wheels are a good thing, not to mention wise.

But I don't see any way we could enforce the provision you suggest. We would need to have some process for "licensing" paid editors and we have no process for licensing anybody.

I can't help but to point out that paid editors who serially sock often do exactly those kind of small edits to get auto-confirmed.... ack.

But thanks for thinking about it... we need better ways to manage COI and paid editing, and ideas are good. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Understood - food for thought, though. If people are going to exploit Wikipedia, we should find some ways to exploit them back. bd2412 T 22:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hm. Don't know if I agree with that. We need to be true to our values, which are not about exploiting anybody.... Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I reverted this massive addition of fringe content to the adaptogen page(it was just pasted on top of the original page), and wanted to let you know. I'm not sure I would be the right person to get involved. Petergstrom (talk) 06:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

i saw. I remember. Please make sure you to stick to policy and don't go too far!! Jytdog (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI: After a discussion with Doc James, I have started a process of revising the Dietary reference intake sections for vitamins and nutritionally essential minerals. Section title to become Dietary recommendations (because Dietary Reference Intake is only for U.S.), adding equivalent values for European Union, and adding citations for EU and the changes to Daily Values. If you want to see what this looks like, have so far revised only vitamin B12, biotin and folate. Please let me know on my Talk if you think this can be further improved before I continue with the other vitamins, and then the minerals. Thank you. David notMD (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

This makes great sense. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey man, when you have time, would you mind taking a look at this discussion? It's not urgent, but I was just curious about your opinion. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 17:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I had a look. I don't see a pattern of paid editing in their contribs. About the specific article, I can't see it as it is gone, but I have generally agreed with your judgement.... About the discussion, the person is being aggressive but it is hard to tell if that is because they want to get paid or they are just offended that their contribution was judged as spammy. A solution might be to offer to draftify it and ask the person to put it through AfC and reviewers there judge it OK, well, then it passed somebody's review.... Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Alex Shih^Talk 23:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

WHAT ABOUT THE POPE?!?!?!

Reading that back and forth made me lol ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Well you made me laugh! it was pointy i know but it seemed a useful rhetorical device. not to mention getting out some pentup frustration with having been subjected to it.Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I think WP:POINT is pretty clear that if your making of a point isn't disruptive (and if folks are still engaging you, that's a good sign that it's not disruptive), it's not a problem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, it was funny enough that I will periodically ask you this question in all caps for the foreseeable future, during our interactions. Just a friendly warning. ;)

P.S. I went ahead of moved the draft of Acid ash hypothesis into article space (remember that from back in May?), as a quick reading of it was pretty cogent (though I did make some additional changes). It still needs some work, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I will be sure not to brace myself so i am good surprised when you do! Thanks for taking care of that diet thing. one of the many not-done on my to-do list! Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is it promo to link someone's involvement in a major film? Snelling has recently made national news and clearly the film seems a matter of some controversy, even here on Wikipedia. Apparently this is his first appearance in a nationally-released film. Please clarify. Boeldieu (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I saw your other change; it seems odd to place that statement there since everyone knows that is the mainstream view in terms of GC formation. From a journalistic perspective, it seems oddly out of place. My reasons for changing it were ultimately stylistic: why would anyone want it there? Apparently his point in his current research project has nothing to do with dating rocks in Grand Canyon, but is with radiohalos (from what I've read) and questions about polonium decay. Why did you put it back? It seems irrelevant to the controversy of alleged religious discrimination. Boeldieu (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Happy to discuss content on the article Talk page. If you will post the note above there, I will reply there. thx Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi! May I ask you why you reverted your rollback here? Actually your rollback was correct. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 15:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The editor who restored what the bot deleted is an admin, and i presume they understand what we do with images better than i do. Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems like you're reverting edits without even looking at them. You didn't even leave a reason in the edit comments. 213.149.62.202 (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

If you persist in calling my edits "vandalism" you will end up blocked. Happy to discuss content on the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

What is the problem here? Why was it removed? I will try to fix it and re-post it again. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.112.146.137 (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2017‎

On August 20, 2017 you removed product information from lemma Hoffmann-La Roche. Looking at other pharmaceutical companies on WP, you did not remove similar product listings (see Merck & Co) and others. Why? BBCLCD (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Happy to discuss article content on the relevant article Talk page - if you will ask there, I will answer there. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 06:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

What you wrote here made remember a previous metaphor about dumping toxic waste which I think you made. Do you recall where that occurred? I might start building a new essay with that and another I have about civic participation. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

not sure.. i use that metaphor sometimes so hard to know just where you saw it.

But I laid out the metaphor on my userpage in User:Jytdog#Paid_editing_in_particular a few days ago ....

it is for me part of a little campaign i am on, to have WP seen as a public good like a national park, and to have "black hat" paid editors seen like people who dump industrial waste into rivers. That in turn, is part of an effort to differentiate the market of paid editing providers. Nobody should want to buy services from toxic dumpers. Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes exactly. I was thinking of a similar metaphor while working on the summer wildfires articles. People around where I live dump trash in the forests too, so ... ruminating on different kinds of despoilation of the commons. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this edit of yours, please try to be more civil in the future. I would suggest you read WP:UNCIVIL. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

User:RoySmith Definitely not a happy unicorns prancing in the sunlight moment. I should have just ignored the poking. Not helpful to me and not nice for others to read.

I define "civility" as, "don't do stuff that creates unnecessary friction, that gets in the way of getting work done. We are here to work. So don't attack people, follow them around, etc etc. Just focus on the work." That is the heart of the policy. It isn't about being "nicey nice."

You took note of my profanity-laden comment. What makes people disrespect the "civility police" is that you said nothing to SMarshall. Of course not. They wrote nicely-nicely. But what they did there -- especially in their second comment but their first was already bad -- was UNCIVIL trolling, distracting from getting work done.

Here is the exchange

• their first remark
• my my first reply
• their second reply
• the diff above

There is a brighter line at directing profanity at people like "fuck you, you stupid fuckwit. You are a moron." And this I did not do. A stream of profanity is not nice, but is definitely on this side of the bright line. That is not excusing it; it is an ugly thing.

But the "lesson" you are giving is that suave trolling is perfectly acceptable. Which i reject and again is why most of the community views civility policing as not engaged with real world, but dreaming of happy unicorns prancing in the sun. Things are much messier than that.

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, since you asked my opinion... I think you're right that you should have just ignored whatever set you off :-) But, deeper than that, you're also right about stuff that creates unnecessary friction, that gets in the way of getting work done. I don't think I'm a prude, but I found your string of f-bombs offensive. And, if I found it offensive, I'll guess that there are plenty of people who found it really offensive. Which means your outburst made this an unwelcoming environment to work. Which in turn means it created friction, and got in the way of getting work done. I can think of plenty of people I know in real life who would look at that exchange and never come back to work on the project. I know that's not what either of us wants. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your frank reply. I will keep that in mind. You did ignore the objection and remain focused on the profanity, and you are free to do that. People do tend to remain locked in on the thing that upset them, just as I am doing here :) Jytdog (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Jytdog, I hope that you don't mind if I give a third opinion here. I know that you have felt sometimes that I go a little too far in terms of lecturing you, so please understand that I'm saying this with friendly intentions. It seems to me that RoySmith's comments to you are perfectly reasonable, and nothing more than some constructive advice. Neither he nor I are finding fault with you in any major way. We all get hot under the collar sometimes, and everyone understands that. I do not think that you were being trolled. Rightly or wrongly, the use of obvious curse words makes for an easy target, whereas when some other editors (I'm not talking about anyone in particular, just in general) can be disagreeable while seeming to be superficially polite. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional thoughts! Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• IMHO Swear words are like the artisan-made-with-aged-parmigiana-and-hand-ground-black-pepper croutons on the word salad that is WP talk pages. Some of us love to crunch into one. You don't have to like them, but if you don't; just brush em off. ShitPissFuckCuntCocksuckerMotherfuckerTits (these are more like the bacon bits) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Although some editors find that they cause bad breath. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I got a little snarky there. But I do think the article is quite coatracky, and I went into sentence-by-sentence detail about the lead section in the previous discussion. So when you wrote flatly that the article was mostly about DI, I felt a little blown off. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

i hear you. thanks! these conversations can be hard. :) I am sorry you felt blown off -- that was not my intention. Will write more there. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou for your note at this page. I'm not sure that a similar note from me would have had anything like the same effect. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

sure. johnvr is very intense about this and gets in his own way sometimes. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog! This is off-topic of why I am here, but first I want to pay you a couple of compliments. I couldn't help but look over a couple of the conversations here and I want to say how much I admire how you handled some truly inexcusable behavior. I know you are trying to be patient with me as well--hopefully you can see I am genuinely trying as well. It's all very frustrating and it's easy to react as though you are the one being obstructive, but I am honestly trying to see past that and assume you really do have good reasons. I really am trying to learn what I need to know to do this properly. Please don't lose faith in me as an editor. I am not just a "Christian" trying to change an article to reflect my own biases, I am trying hard to figure Wiki out. Anyway, I know we have disagreed, but I am hopeful we can still get past that, and I just wanted to say that now I not only admire your work but also your character in dealing with people. Thank you.

So why I am actually here is about the Bible and violence article obviously. GGS posted a reorg idea that looked like this:

Divine In person Collective (Deluge, cities, Egypt and whatnot) 1 on 1 On his orders (laws/regulations here?) By/On the orders of "his people", (Cain/Abel, Moses, Samson, The Kings, there must be some wars?) Bad guys

But I didn't respond because, in all honesty, I couldn't quite follow what the category titles meant: in person? Since the events such as the Deluge and Egypt are listed under collective I am confused what that means--nor did I understand how the headings related to actual events in the Bible--what is 1 on 1? This isn't an approach--as far as I could tell--found in any of the scholarly works on this topic; the majority of the violence in the Old T. is human--not Divine--and all this seems to focus on is Divine. (Cain killing Abel are "By the orders of his people??? I don't follow how the first murder in passion and jealousy involved anyone ordering anything--do you?). So that's why I went and looked for secondary sources for ideas on how to organize this--I was confused.

I know you and I disagreed on including Islam since, in my view, although they are indeed Abrahamic they do not have anything to do with the Bible, but I didn't disagree with you on every point--just that one. Perhaps if you could flesh it out a little with more specifics we could go with your ideas. Perhaps you could come up with some combination of all three?

I am trying to be responsive to your concerns about supersessionism--they seem legitimate. It is also completely fair for you to say that right now there is an insufficient discussion of the Hebrew Bible. But these comments in conjunction with one another have made me feel a little "damned if I do--damned if I don't" because it seems like putting something about violence in the OT section produces automatic accusations of supersessionism and bias. And that seems unfair--especially when I am quoting. I need to be more careful about my sources--I can do that, no problem. I agree completely that there needs to be more on the Old T. and to be careful about supersessionism--both those ideas I support. Discussing Old T. events doesn't have to have anything to do with Christianity though--does it? Why would it? So I am confused by what seem like mixed requirements from you.

Since the Old Testament is twice as long as the New that means--in my thinking--that the discussion of it should also be twice as long -- without referencing Christianity at all. If you don't agree I would like to hear from you with a little more input than just--this is garbage--which isn't terribly helpful. I would like to actually understand your thinking. I have apparently not been as sensitive to supersessionist views as you are--I will become more so--but everything discussing violence in the Old T. isn't automatically supersessioninst is it?

If you understood what GGS meant in her reorg approach and you want to follow that one then let's do that--just please explain what you think the headings actually mean and how the heck they relate to events in the Bible so that I can participate in a manner which will reduce possible friction between us. If you have better ideas than the ones that have come up so far, I am asking--please take the time to type them out and post them--maybe without the Islam in it. Is it possible for us to include some of all of these approaches combined into one approach we can all get behind? Would that be an acceptable compromise? I would like to settle on something and move on with getting this highly biased article cleaned up and more reflective of the kind of work you normally do. I would like to be a part of it. Please take the time to help me if you would. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and for reaching out so nicely.

There is definitely violence in the Hebrew Bible and of course talking about that is fine. Where the supercessionist stuff comes in, is in the comparative/evaluative statements.

Am really surprised to see you write "Discussing Old T. events doesn't have to have anything to do with Christianity though - does it?" Well, calling it the "Old Testament" is already a Christian action, right? So even in your question, Christianity is embedded.

This stuff is difficult. In the organization I proposed, I tried to make it clear where we would look at the biblical texts just as literature, describing what is there; where we look at as historical literature and put it in its contexts (plural, as it was written and redacted in many contexts), and where we would carefully and intentionally look at how various groups have made meaning from it over time. In the section on how various Christianities have made meaning of it -- and only there -- would Christianity have "something to do with it".

We do best to be very... intentional, and very self-aware.. in the organization and editing, on topics around religion. In my view. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this very nice and reasonable response. In my experience--and one discussion I read in some of my research lately--there is no fully satisfactory and completely un-prejudicial way to refer to the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible/Tanakh because whichever term is chosen, there is too much dangling along behind to claim any of it is free from issues--so the author I read said use whatever term is pertinent to the discussion. It seemed like good advice, so, since this is the Bible, I am simply using that O.T. term accordingly. Thank you for giving me a chance to explain. I can see how it could be assumed to be a Christian bias. I accept what you say about comparatives--that one quote you removed did contain that. I overlooked it because I thought the rest of the quote was good. I won't do that again.

I don't have a problem looking at the texts as literature and as history--my problem was probably confusion again. I think from my point of view this approach seems inherent in writing anything about the Bible to some degree--I should have been more careful to include that in every discussion of everything I wrote, I guess, and will try to amend accordingly in those discussions where it seems missing--if I can. When I was looking, it seemed like some events have lots of discussion of their historicity--some have virtually none; some events had lots of theological discussion--some had virtually none. There is not an even distribution of treatment of different topics amongst scholars--so I mixed it up and did not separate approaches. But this created an imbalanced method you felt was too heavy on the theology--so okay. I thought I just went with what there was without really choosing--but that was probably my mistake. I will look more purposefully in an effort to locate those exact views.

I suppose my confusion was mostly that if each of these is a separate section--along with a theology section and a sociology section I think you originally said--isn't there going to be a lot of redundancy? Will the same events be discussed from multiple perspectives? Wouldn't that become unbelievably long--and really boring!?! My other concern was that this approach would be too general--that we would end up discussing the Bible as literature without discussing specific events; sociological views seem all general in what I could find; the historicity of different events varies dramatically from early to later, and if that is discussed as an issue by itself--again--there will be no room left for any real discussion of the acts of violence themselves!! How can we create some balance?

Would you be willing to reconsider unwavering commitment to your own proposal? Compromise? If we went through chronologically or followed my five categories, we could still be sure we have the 'as literature', history, theology and sociology aspects under each one. They wouldn't even have to be labelled that way--we would all just have to be careful--or they could be listed as subheadings under each major category--or even under each major event separately. We would have to stick to major events though or it will get too long again. These approaches are combinable--they are not mutually exclusive.

Along that line I would like to make an appeal that you consider Creach's use of creation imagery and mythology somewhere in the discussion on violence. He makes a really good argument that creation stories set the tone for everything that follows in a society. He uses the Babylonians as an example of a warrior-like God in a battle at creation and a warrior-like people who used that as justification for their own wars and the extreme violence they were known for--also the Assyrians--and so on. There is a lot of disagreement concerning leviathan as representative of that same type of creation battle in the Bible, and whether the Jews believed their God was primarily a warrior god, or not. It's an interesting discussion. Anyway, it does seem like it has a place in the discussion of violence in the Bible, especially within an overview of ANE societies in general.

Thank you again. I appreciate just being able to talk. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I just added a couple of sections to the existing article--just for the Hell of it I guess! Don't get mad! If we re-organize the article they may completely go away! It could be a total waste of time but whatever--they were already written and until we make some decisions it's better than doing nothing at all I'm thinking! I am keeping my fingers crossed there is nothing you find objectionable in any of it. If you do--perhaps we could remove that and leave the rest??? Not everything in my sandbox will be usable--but I hope this is. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. You must be the fastest reverter on Wiki. That's got to be some kind of record--that was seconds. I'm impressed. I know there is no agreement yet, that's true, but I figured what the Hell Jytdog? Nothing's happening. Yes history and all of it is mixed together, but so far, that's pretty much the only way I have found any of this written about in any of the secondary sources. I haven't found a book that actually deals with violence in the Bible that doesn't mix meaning and history and theology and evaluation and linguistics and literary criticism all together in whatever they are discussing. The only subject I have found discussed separately so far has been sociology. Oh--and pure theology--all of which I have moved past. Otherwise the subject of violence in the Bible is examined from multiple perspectives in every source I have found. Some sources are very anti-theist but they still discuss meaning and they still evaluate. Have you found sources that don't do that? I would appreciate being told what they are because I haven't found the model you are trying to create here in any secondary source I have looked at--which seems like we might be imposing our perspective rather than finding it in the sources. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I read fast and was actually looking at the article when you added that stuff. We should discuss content at the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog, I noticed some information that should be added. Operating companies, Par Pharmaceutical, Paladin Labs, Endo Pharmaceuticals and SOMAR should be referenced within the Endo International plc page. Feel free to view http://www.endo.com/our-companies or http://www.endo.com/about-us which confirms this information.

If possible, CEO, Paul Campanelli, and CFO, Blaise Coleman should also be referenced on the Wikipedia page. Feel free to view http://www.endo.com/about-us/company-leadership/management-team which confirms this information.

Hzoumaslubeski (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Please respond to my question on your talk page, about your relationship with Endo. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for providing feedback to my students! Smojarad (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

you are welcome! Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

In this edit you deleted PMID 9066947. It is of the publication types "Case Reports" (yes, that part is primary) and "Review" (secondary). Granted this is purely a message to tell you to look at the PubMed page and it's publication types before labelling something a primary source. As it is old I will accept its deletion, but not it being labelled a primary source. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 07:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm.. OK. A lot of case studies do include some review content, this is true. But you had a much stronger source with the other :) Was there some value to the 1990s ref? If so then i will self-revert if you like. Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Na I accept its deletion, as it is old, just not it being labelled a primary source. It is mostly a review, its abstract doesn't even mention the individual case it's discussing. It's more a matter of principle than anything else, as I am pedantic. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 07:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

In Vietnam, Jackfruit wood is used to make barrels that contain fish and salt to make fish sauce. Fish sauce is very common in Vietnam. A lot of Vietnamese know that fish sauce barrels are made of Jackfruit wood, and also the other expensive wood. Whatever you do not know does not mean that it does not exist. In this case, I am the source of the information.

Please, edit back the version I edited, for I do not want to fight against you forever. I gave up, and it is up to you to do the right thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jackfruit&oldid=prev&diff=632643658

Trần Anh Mỹ (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Trần Anh Mỹ: Please read WP:IRS and WP:RSVETTING, then take the principles contained there and use them to find a reliable source that says that Jackfruit wood is used to make fish barrels. Once you have that, post the source here or on my talk page and I will happily format it for you so you can get it added to the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

You refuse to do the right thing. You think that you know everything, and you have the right to tell what is reliable source? What kind of person you are?Trần Anh Mỹ (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Look at the article: Jackfruit#Wood. The content about fish barrels is there, with a source. The diff you provided above is from 2014. The sourced content was added in this diff in 2015. Everything in Wikipedia needs a source. This is very basic stuff. Even more basic, is actually paying attention to the article itself.Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is the source:

http://www.baomoi.com/nhung-loai-thung-dac-biet-dung-de-u-nuoc-mam-phan-thiet/c/22565947.epi

The quote:

"Được chế biến từ loại gỗ mềm như bằng lăng, mít, bời lời để làm thùng"

Translate into English:

"Made from soft wood such as tombs, jackfruit, Litsea to make barrels" Trần Anh Mỹ (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

it is already there and sourced since 2015. What the hell are you complaining about? Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I complain that my contribution on September 2014 is correct. Your editing my contribution is an error. The version of 2015 shows that you are incorrect, and that you are annoying. You make judgments that are the result of your ignorance. I hope that you stop editing others works.Trần Anh Mỹ (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jytdog, my overwriting or deleting your post was an accident that happened due to an Editing Conflict message that I got from WP. You must have posted very quickly before I was able to complete a small additional edit to my posting. I apologize for the deletion, which was caused by my confusion in this situation.

I see that you have deleted my latest edit, which includes the example of the Roman Empire. Please restore my latest edition without deleting your own posting again, as a favor to me in my confusion, or explain to me why that is not possible and I will try my best to do it.

Thank you.

As to the content of your posting, I feel very hesitant about adding a new section to the article itself, feeling certain that someone would simply delete it, as other editors may feel that my section is incompatible with the rest of the article or is even vandalism. I wanted to solicit opinions on my proposal first, in the WP tradition of discussing a major change first. Is that okay?

I will watch this page and look here for your reply. David Spector (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks, and done. i'll reply more there. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

At this diff you wrote "NEVER OVERWRITE OTHER PEOPLE'S COMMENTS. NEVER". I respectfully point out that you did it to me here . Roberttherambler (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Your comment is neither respectful nor competent. Read WP:OWNTALK - you can delete other people's comments off your own talk page; you cannot change them, nor change the discussion so that other people's comments lose their context. That is different from the situation on an article talk page, where what David did was not OK.

Your comment here provides another diff of you hounding me and incompetently at that. I've advised you to stop. Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not what you said. You said NEVER and then emphasized it by saying NEVER again. You did not say NEVER (with certain exceptions). Roberttherambler (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You are trolling. Please go do something that shows you are here to build an encyclopedia and not here for dramah.Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

OK. I have added a Controversy section at Sustainable energy. Roberttherambler (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

That was very unwise. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Why? It was requested on the talk page. Roberttherambler (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, thank you for your edit to my section in Talk:Sustainable energy‎. I have fixed a minor problem with the location of my name and date. I am sure you need no help in dealing with people like Roberttherambler who seem more interested in argument than in improving WP, but please note that his misbehavior is noticed and not appreciated. David Spector (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jytdog, I made several edits to the Gastroschisis page which have now all been removed. Apparently I was required to use mainly secondary sources. Most of the sources cited were in fact secondary sources. In the alternative the remarks could be re-posted using mainly secondary sources. I would be grateful for your further advice to ensure compliance. Thankyou so your further advice. Blueheeler.ozBlueheeler.oz (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your note. Please see WP:MEDDEF for the definitions of "primary" and "secondary" here in Wikipedia. Most of the sources you used were "primary" as we have define that. If you have questions about MEDDEF or WP:MEDRS more generally, please feel free to ask... Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog,

I am very disappointed with AFD at Housejoy, resulted in no consensus. If we start accepting these sort of companies, I am sure Wikipedia will become a Crunchbase sort of website. Another possible spammer, Cryptodd, I have nominated JASK Labs for deletion and looking at his previous contributions he seems to be a very clear spammer and high chances of a possible sock farm. Created pages Sorenson Ventures, NeoTribe Ventures, Engineering Capital, Data in use, PrivateCore and Nok Nok Labs.

Another list of spam, Mr. Right Services ‎ (also created redirect Mr. Right (Website)). What is the best way to handle these sort of spams and get a result, rather than no consensus? Few supporters in AFDs are clearly paid editors, I won't name but you can check. Let's fight spam. Sundartripathi (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of software company articles that are spammy, this is true. Mr. Right Services ‎ looks very much like one of them.

About Cryptodd - I had a chat with them on their talk page; they say that they are an industry person who has taken an interest in Wikipedia; they might be lying but they do not appear to me to be paid or conflicted. Working on these issues is not easy; some things are more clear than others.

What we need to do is raise the WP:NCORP standard. I started a conversation about that there, which has kind of petered out. i should revive it. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I've revised the passage some more to avoid COPYVIO. Does the current version work better? Please let me know. The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Happy to discuss content at the article talk page. I found a good source I posted there. Jytdog (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see you post a source. Rather, you removed one.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

And the source I added does pertain to law, as the bill in question was a direct response to an earlier ruling that had passed through Congress (per the source).The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

There was already a discussion going on at the talk page by the time you arrived.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 08:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe#Superfluous_apostrophes_.28.22greengrocers.27_apostrophes.22.29

stop adding apostrophe to "founders" - even the zcash page makes it clear it has no apostrophe: https://z.cash/blog/funding.html

you're also misreading the section, let's examine it:

Unlike Bitcoin, Zcash takes a "founders reward" of 20% for all coins generated for the first four years. When all 21 million coins have been generated, the founders will own up to 10% of coins in circulation. The founders reward is distributed to the founders, investors, employees and advisors of Zcash.

1. unlike bitcoin: used to parallel the sentence prior to it. "like bitcoin, zcash has a fixed supply of 21 million units" blah blah blah -- "unlike bitcoin, zcash takes a cut" blah blah blah

2. zcash takes a "founders reward" of 20% for all coins generated for the first four years: do you not understand that? they take 20% of all coins generated for the first four years. it is later explained that by the end of the 21 million supply generation, their stake will be 10%.

3. when all 21 million coins have been generated, the founders will own up to 10% of coins in circulation: this is to say that after those first four years are up, they will not take a cut any longer. down the line, years later, when all 21 million coins are generated, they will own up to 10% of the supply.

4. the founders reward is distributed to the founders, investors, employees and advisors of Zcash: this is to explain who the founders are

your syntax was very unclear prior to this edit. please stop undoing— Preceding unsigned comment added by Verifiedaccount (talk • contribs) 08:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

If you would like to post this on the article talk page i would be happy to reply there— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) 10:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It's blindingly obvious what's going on here. Given the extensive history of COI/paid socks at the article, do you think it's worth bringing the user to COIN? Voceditenore (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Dude, you've got to chill and give me a second to add the ref. I just said in my last edit summary that I was doing it. You don't need to quote me WP:BURDEN. I didn't have time to add it yesterday and the revert just struck me as lazier than adding the ref yourself. But seriously, please make sure you read the edit summary next time (I did make it very clear that I was adding the ref if you'd given me a second). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. What you wrote was Sure, I'll add it (but you can too instead of reverting). Nothing about "now" there. But i hear you, that you meant "now". Next time you can add the ref with the revert, then no drama. Or be more clear that you mean "now". Another thing to do would to be to note the adding content about X on the talk page, instead of adding unsourced content to the article, if you are in a hurry. We are all busy and have big watchlists. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I think assuming that's what I was doing instead of assuming that I was edit warring (especially for a veteran editor) might fall under assuming good faith. You already know I don't do that. This is the first time I ever got pushback for adding content without adding the source that fast (considering so much of Wikipedia goes without sourcing for...months, years, etc). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

sorry the trouble. we got there. i was in the process of restoring with a source when you did it - that was my follow on edit to yours. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Where under History does it say the drug was abandoned due to low demand? Natureium (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I made it even more painfully clear and just condensed the two sections. Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Prior to your edit, it never said anything about them not renewing the marketing authorization being due to low demand. Natureium (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And by the way, an edit summary of "for the impaired" in response to my edit is insulting. Natureium (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Natureium i don't know if you didn't take time to read the WP article and look at the content and refs that were there, or if you really don't understand what you read when it comes to this stuff. Our article already said they only had 1 sale and it already said that they terminated it; making it explicit that it they terminated due to "lack of demand" is a bit pendantic but fine. What is somewhat incompetent is dealing with the same thing - the termination of the product - in two different places in the body of the article, in such a short article. The NYT article also gave it just a passing mention while talking about other stuff, and the existing Fierce source discussed the termination in depth. So the content was in the wrong place and this specific NYT article was worse than the source we already had.

But yeah I should have just explained that in the edit note instead of the CIR note. Sorry. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The fact that only one person had been treated with it doesn't make it explicit that it was terminated due to lack of demand. There are many possible conclusions that a reader could draw from that. Perhaps only one person was treated because of problems manufacturing it, which necessitated its discontinuance. Natureium (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what distinction were you trying to draw here? The only person I've seen using them to mean different things is Ron Dworkin, who uses "morals" for rules about interactions with others and "ethics" for personal principles, but even he admits that most people don't distinguish these, and anyway it seems ambiguous which of these Gandhi would have meant. FourViolas (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Morals are about good and evil and are often rooted in religion or faith; ethics are more philosophical and are based on assumptions and reasoning from them. They are similar but different. I know of almost no one who says that say homosexuality is somehow unethical, but some people view it as immoral. Jytdog (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. FWIW, moral philosophers (or ethicists) do sometimes contrast a descriptive sense of "morality" approximately as you describe (the codes of conduct held by a particular group) with a normative sense of "morality" like the one you call "ethics" (the subject of "ought"-based philosophy; Gert 2016), but more often "ethics (or moral philosophy)" are interchangeable. Anyway, thanks for explaining. FourViolas (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

in my view moral philosophy is yet another thing. related to philosophy of religion. Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion, but it might create confusion if you start changing things from their in-field usages more widely. Imagine if you were looking to go to grad school for "biochemistry," and disregarded all universities which had "molecular biology" departments instead. FourViolas (talk) 05:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The distinction I make is not "mine"; it is widely used. Ethics =/= morals. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That may be true, but if the experts (who are very much in the business of drawing finicky distinctions) use the terms interchangeably or to express a different contrast, I doubt the average WP reader will appreciate the distinction you endorse. FourViolas (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

You are incorrect (see thing about homosexuality above - this is made in the field and is a distinction commonly used in English). This is not worth pursuing; please do not continue a pointless argument, unless you want to change the content back, in which case please raise this at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I've spoken to you before about this. I think you're wikihounding Barbara. It had better stop. I recommend you seek a mutual interaction ban. If your behavior continues, I will take action. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You are editing per WP:GANG and you are dealing with the stuff that i don't believe you understand and where there are discretionary sanctions at this point. I can explain but cannot, with the stance you are taking. Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

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

- BilCat (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

In the section title 'Potential health benefits', where does it state anything about human health? Furthermore, the section title does not state actual health or actual human health, it states potential health benefits, thereby it refers to possible, not necessarily actual, benefits to health of humans or animals, or for that matter plants or anything else.

My edit is relevant to the information on Olive oil, it may or may not be relevant to human health, nowhere do I state human health, nor does the section title, but I state mice and it is factual information regarding olive oil health effects on mice.

If you object to my addition being in potential health effects section, due to your belief that the section somehow implies human health, please don't just delete it, move it to a more appropriate section or create one which is appropriate for the information and/or make it clear that the section relates to human health. (Lkingscott talk) 21:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Potential health benefits are about health, or else no one, including you, would care.

We get people from drug companies and medical device companies who want to come and write about the potential health benefits of their products -- does that also seem just fine to you?

Likewise, people come and want to write about the potential health benefits of wearing tin hits to prevent the government from driving you crazy with their mind control rays. Does that also seem just fine to you?

We as a community don't accept the phony distinction you are making.

Content about health needs to be sourced per MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

So you're not prepared to enter a dialogue and just revert anything you disagree with. This is a fundamental problem with Wiki. I expect you'll revert this. I'm glad you don't appear to impose your views on pages with engineering topics. I'm done with this. (Lkingscott talk) 10:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I inserted a section about Brain aging & Low level laser therapy and Alzheimer's disease here. You reverted my changes with the comment "your edits have been to add citations to papers from the same group of author". What does that mean? I could not find the terms in relation to the prohibition of referring to similar authors. By the way, we try to add up-to-date information related to the topic and improve the contents, but unfortunately we face with this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saeed 110 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I made this edit, which you reverted as a BLP violation, precisely to refute the BLP violation that you committed by suggesting that the subject might have created the article himself. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jytdog, thanks for your efforts to clean up the Monero entry on Wikipedia. I think it's mostly been added to by people in the wider cryptocurrency community, and a lot of them aren't Wikipedia editors and don't follow all the rules or meet all the expectations. Thus your work is greatly appreciated!

One thing I wanted to discuss with you are the "blogs tracking transactions" (such as explore.moneroworld.com or moneroblocks.info). They are a reasonably canonical source of information, since the data can be validated against other block explorers or by running the open-source block explorer code on your local node. There's not really another way of capturing this information in a publicly accessible manner other than block explorers, otherwise it's just spurious claims and everyone has to download the Monero software and sync up with the network to validate the stats themselves.

I'm open to suggestions as to how this should be done and how block explorers should be referenced?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffypony (talk • contribs) 13:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion on this draft that I have been working up. I realize that web companies are often iffy propositions, but I noticed that Digiday is used as a reference in well over a hundred Wikipedia articles. My thinking is that the media outlets that we regularly use as reliable sources are probably notable, and should be included. The two best sources in the article, in my opinion, are the Fortune article and the Fast Company top ten list. The problem is that searches for sources about Digiday are drowned in results from Digiday (and in sources like CNN, Slate, etc., that are themselves merely citing Digiday as a source). bd2412 T 17:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Stop removing everything. The information is undoubtedly correct; either fix the citation you think does not work, or tell me which sources you think are invalid and I will refute your claims. Github research/source code is a valid source, read for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source

No article provides sufficient specifications, GitHub is the legitimate, original source for all info crypto-related. You are literally being a power hungry pedant. STOP REVERTING AIMLESSLY.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Verifiedaccount (talk • contribs) 22:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Primary and SPS can be used, but rarely and with care. Stuff like reddit is never OK per WP:USERGENERATED. Please discuss content at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Appears to be a hot topic recently... —PaleoNeonate – 21:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hm! Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Genomic Health Partly cleaned up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the great work you did today in cleaning out the foreskin article. I would have been afraid of being accused of vandalism if I had done it.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)^[FBDB] Yes, Jytdog is always the editor to ask, when cleaning out a foreskin. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought you would have a... tip for me here. :) Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

So long as there was no inappropriate use of rollback. Alexbrn (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Sugarcube73, some, if not most, of those non-MEDRS sources were added by you. I don't think you would have edited the article the way that Jytdog did. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Just use "TNT per policy" as a ES and nobody will notice… L3X1 (distænt write) 02:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I hope that doesn't mean using TNT for a circumcision! Anyway, I'm glad to see that the content made the cut. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Ouch!! I just want to say ... smegma. One of the most horribly apt words in English. Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's time to cut off this discussion before it gets too hairy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog. Since you have a fair amount of experience dealing with COI issues, I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at WP:COIN#”Wiki What?”. It's something I've never really come across before so I'm not sure if it would be considered to be COI or PAID. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC); [Note: Post copyedited by me (Marchjuly) to add the word "sure" (underlined) and do some other cleanup. -- 22:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)].

The BBC source on the AfD page mentions Anti-Islam but provides no other sources for that claim. As a German speaker, the AfD does not self identify as Anti-Islam and only as Anti-immigration. The German version of the AfD page supports this. Hunter9502 (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Please post that on the article talk page, in the section I had already opened, and I will reply there. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)