User talk:Jytdog/Archive 28

Dear Jytdog

Thank you for your request. The information has improved since yesterday. Thank you to helpers. Here are some suggestions.

Education and appointments Please add the degree: text becomes: ".. where he graduated BSc with First Class Honours from the University of Adelaide in 1972." Last sentence: Since appointment as Professor Emeritus is only made coinciding with retirement, this should read: "... and upon retirement in Sep 2013 was was appointed Professor Emeritus.[2][3] He retained his office, while the Bosch Institute of Medical Research took over his lab space in 2015.[4]

Career A few things are not quite correct. In line 2 (3rd sentence): "He remained interested in the field during his PhD in Melbourne and postdoctoral years in the US, where he had the good fortune ...." In line 4: Since "prorenin" is encoded by the renin gene, "the prorenin and" should be deleted.

Awards and Honours At the very end, ref [3] is the wrong reference as it refers to the Dahl award. Instead it needs to refer to the the Irvine Page--Alva Bradley Lifetime Achievement Award. Please add this reference: .^[1]

Thank you again very much for your kind help

Best wishes

Brian

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Professoremeritusbrianmorris (talk • contribs) 20:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Please post the message above at Talk:Brian Morris (biologist). Please do not continue posting things about the article here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Jytdog!

I can see that my editions on Myriad Genetics were weighted, but how would you suggest making them more neutral? The current paragraph includes errors such as, "...Patenting genes has been an established practice since the beginning of genetic research," which the listed source (blog post) does not support; it states that the first genetic patent was in 1980, which is also not entirely accurate. It also somewhat trivializes the concern regarding the patent. Additionally, the statement that the patent "...Did not interfere with scientists’ ability to study the gene" is also not accurate because scientists had to first get permission for any non-negligible study and had to pay a fee for doing so, as noted by the source I listed in my edit. I'm just not entirely sure how to edit or replace the current sentence stating otherwise without making the section weighted in the other direction. Lastly, the final sentence of the paragraph seems to directly support the prior argument and try to invalidate concerns that scientists have difficulties publishing papers under the described restrictions. I was thinking of simply altogether removing it.

Thank you for your time!

MaxtonTheGreat (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Please post at the the talk page, and I will reply there. There are many reasons to discuss content there. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Jytdog

Further to my message a couple of hours ago, I thank that ref 7 to a local letter box newsletter in Sydney ("The Beast") can be improved by citing instead the article that appeared in the New York Times (whcih has very much greater credibility). Thus instead of "7. Zadrozny, Brandy (2 April 2014). "New Study Says Benefits of Circumcision Outweigh Risks 100 to 1". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 31 March 2015." I suggest the following as ref 7:

"Childhood benefits from circumcision. By Nicolas Bakalar, New York Times, 8 Apr 8 2014, page D6.), http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/circumcision-benefits-outweigh-risks-study-reports/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 "

Many thanks again for the great job you have been doing to improve the Wikipedia entry.

Kind wishes

Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professoremeritusbrianmorris (talk • contribs) 22:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Please post the message above at Talk:Brian Morris (biologist). Please do not continue posting things about the article here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog. It seems you are quite active in monitoring and responding to pages with promotional material and conflict of interest. I'd like to alert you to the following page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayo_Clinic_School_of_Medicine) with rampant boosterism. The page was flagged recently, but a user who has been making many revisions to this page removed the flag despite not addressing any of the issues. I restored it, but suspect it will be removed again. The article is not neutral at all and might have a conflicted editor running the show. Your response would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.83.91 (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

172.58.83.91, I removed the flag since no issues were mentioned in the edit summary or on the talk page. I should emphasize that I have no conflicts as an editor on the MCSOM page. Please join the discussion at Talk:Mayo_Clinic_School_of_Medicine#Academic_boosterism so we understand the specifics. Trantorian (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey I just wanted to say thanks for inviting me to suggest some content in your last message. I feel like it is still possible for us to reach a consensus, and I just want to apologize for frustrating you, and for any ways that I misunderstood policy or failed to express myself well. For now I think I'm going to hold off making a proposal of content, because my voice has been heard too much on that page, and there are a few other folks involved now that are probably better positioned to make a proposal that could win acceptance from all of us. But I'd like to believe that we can still work together despite some bad blood that has come up between us, and I wanted also to say that I have found a number of points you've made to be insightful and well-considered, so thanks for that.Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I left some replies to you at Talk:Sugar. HLHJ (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser5991 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I think your talk page is setting some kind of record for the greatest number of utterly BS warnings and templates in just a few days. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to win that prize. I've been watching old South Park episodes and having inappropriate discussions with strangers to wash it out of me. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Just tell them to respect your authoritah. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

exactly! Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that! See, I'm clairvoyant! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

That is one of my favorite words. So pretty. Am so glad it is not a pornstar name or something. But there is Claire Voyant. And yes you are! Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If "Claire Voyant" isn't taken then I've found my drag name. › Mortee _talk 20:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I went to high school with her. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Well she'll have to change her bloody name. It's mine now. › Mortee _talk 21:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Too late: . --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. All the good names are taken! › Mortee _talk 21:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ugh, it gets worse: . This is what I get for Googling Claire Voyant, which, come to think of it, sounds like a double entendre. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

If that's what I'd be associated with then I'm going with Emma Mann, which is frankly genius anyway. › Mortee _talk 21:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It currently says "ARCA discussion archived here; notice given to me here."

The first link, which currently points to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Amendment_request:_Jytdog_.28February_2017.29, doesn't contain an archive. The actual archive is currently located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive_12#Amendment_request:_Jytdog_(February_2017).

Gbear605 (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Gbear605 fixed, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Heads-up that I used your words at the about-to-be-published The Signpost Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Discussion report. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Eek User:Bri that is decontextualized. Eek. My message was that this is getting paid for behavior not for influencing content, but getting paid for saving an edit is getting paid, and should be disclosed, and we should treat this like GLAM with no prior review. That "bias" thing only came up with respect to people involved judging how to handle it. Please don't quote that bit. Thank you for the heads up. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you restate what the bias blind spot pertains to? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

It pertains to people judging themselves if something they are doing is a COI or OK or not. The diff is here. See comment prior, to which I was responding. And do note the response after where offense was taken. This was really a small, unimportant part of the bigger discussion in my view. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Restated, hope this captures the idea – I can't quote the entire discussion. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

That is better, thanks. But again it is not the main thing, and the people involved came to AN to ask about it. That was good of them -- very good! This is a minor piece and I don't like it being pulled out this way. But you are the reporter and all I can do is ask. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• There is currently a discussion seemingly involving you at the Teahouse, if you wish to participate. Just a heads up, Stormy clouds (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, I have great respect for your contributions to Wikipedia. You do a lot of work on things that matter, particularly medical articles and the effects of paid editing. So please, keep up this good work, rather than getting involved in an argument about biblical criticism, a topic which doesn't affect anyone's life. (In my irrelevant opinion, your views there are right while "shine on a turd" is gratuitously offensive.) Maproom (talk) 07:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I echo this sentiment, and agree with your position in a broad sense. I would similarly urge you to keep up the stellar editing work. Merely posted here to alert you to the Teahouse discussion, particularly as the H-word has been invoked. Like I said, just a heads up. I share Maproom's admiration for your editing work. Stormy clouds (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes. I agree that "shine on a turd" is harsh.

I do care about and work on biblical/religious topics as noted on my userpage. This is an issue of advocacy, which is also something I work on across the 'pedia. Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

See recent edits to my user page and two talk pages. Let me know if you think this is insufficient. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm really grateful to you for just now striking various comments that seem to have flowed from a misunderstanding. Not an easy thing to do, and I think it's a great help. › Mortee _talk 23:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the other very reasonable explanation. If I am wrong or reasonably wrong, that's it I back off. I hate bullshit. But thank you for the note. I feel bad that all i can do is strike and apologize, but that is all I can do at this point. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You could do something about the leadsection at Women in the Bible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I very much appreciate you. Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog. There is a problem with a new editor and associated IP user having issues of WP:COI, WP:Casting aspersions and WP:BATTLE. To avoid crossing the WP:OUTING line, is it OK if I contact you by email so you can help me figure out the best course of action? Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

OK. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I sent you email. I checked the option to send me a copy but I didn't get it. I hope you got it... --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey, though I realize we have had our differences, I really am honestly trying to improve that article. Thanks, I think, for your help on the references? Do you think there's any chance we could be friendly to each other? I would like that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Its about the work. Focus on the work. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:CIV is one of the five pillars, and it makes success with the work more likely. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that you actually were giving a fuck about the citations? Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to improve the article and bring our exchange on this little section of text to a close. I haven't really figured out how the reference tag ups work yet, so I did need help on that. Are you saying that you're respecting WP:CIV? Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Everything you have done has expressed disdain for Wikipedia, as nicey-nice as you are. Please stay off my talk page. Jytdog (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The main thing I added was a description of the Toastmasters club meetings. Everything I added in that regard has been a matter of fact in the real world for nearly 100 years. How is that promotional rather than informative? Every day of the year these meetings are held precisely this way and that is a big citation in itself. Do you disregard the real world in favor of journalistic articles ans such? This would constitute self destructive behavior if you think of wikipedia as a person who disregards what they see before them. Regarding promotion, does it mean anything to you that you are dealing with a non-profit educational organization who's mission is to promote good character in the society you have to live in? Encyclopedias are educational and have always had an affinity with other educational institutions. How is my description of the meetings not encyclopedic? People come to wikipedia to be informed about things and I want to add information to this article. I can only add what you will allow. If I find secondary and tertiary citations will you still limit the article for some other reasons? I fixed four mis-spellings and you did not respect the article enough to leave those alone simply for wikipedia's sake. If articles have wrong spelling it also damages wikipedia's reputation as a whole somewhat. I added a note that Smedley served as director of education at the YMCA and I'm mystified why you seem to resent that historical documented fact quite interesting to the readers. I will assume this is all about citations so I wonder why you didn't flag the article as needing citations before wiping it out. Metaphysics Man (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Some of the worst abusers of WP for PR are non-profits; in my experience non-profits are actually nastier because of the self-righteousness.

If this is all common knowledge then there should be independent sources discussing it, right?

But above, all please keep the mission in mind. The page should be encyclopedic - not focused on what they do now or their activities now - that is what their website is for. It should provide an overview of the whole history of the organization. Again, sourced from independent, high quality sources. It is OK to use the website to fill in around the edges, but the page should not be driven by content from their website.

Does that make sense?

You might find user:Jytdog/How helpful, as an overview of what we do here, how we do it, and why we do it that way. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I am getting back to this article after some digressions into bringing moth articles up to GA. The issue of what it does is still a mystery to me, and possible the antioxidant activity is not the only function. i.e. gene expression regulation. See Manolescu 2008 (PMID 20108516). By the way, appears I am retired from being a consultant to dietary supplement companies. I intend to wait to end of year before changing my User page. David notMD (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Hm! There is so much we don't know about basic stuff like this. Amazing. I hope the change in your professional life is a good one for you. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I am coming around to a belief that thinking of vitamin E as having an antioxidant function is akin to using the handle end of a wrench to hammer nails and calling it a hammer. In addition to Manolescu 2008, now trying to coalesce my thinking around Rimbach 2010 (PMID 20336011) and Azzi 2016 (PMID 27095224) = gene expression and signal tranduction. Intending to get it all into the article. Strong deja vu of thinking of flavonoids as antioxidants when the mechanism(s) are something else entirely. Retirement looking good. Working faster on third and fourth books (local history topics). David notMD (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

i am laughing. :) Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting articles: PMID 28624327 PMID 27095224 PMID 27816611. The evidence for benefiting NASH appears to come from PMID 26059365. David notMD (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

yes! Jytdog (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Left 'em a PAID warning. Not sure at what point this goes to ANI.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes people in PR don't view what they are doing as "paid editing" It is strange but true. I am hoping that they will disclose with time. I am concerned about socking. If you look at the history of the Woods page and the now deleted history of J Metro, you will see that an obvious sock Sozerburk, moved the Woods page to mainspace, and that FoCuSandLeArN moved the J Metro page to mainspace. This is all fishy and socky. Don't know if that is paid editor(s) + company rep or all one person... Hm. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

They denied PAID, though that means little. THe page is still hanging out. I can make an argument for G11, but I wish someone else would delete it. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

My response to them is here. The Rueben Wood page is gone. Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Posting at ANI. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I notice you removed our version history infobox from the Dash article, can you please explain why? The infobox was approved by a neutral reviewer (see the talk page). I also note that the article on Ethereum contains an infobox of their release history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum#Milestones), and Google Chrome has an entire wikipedia article that follows the same format as the infobox you removed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome_version_history). Technoir2 (talk) 09:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Please do post at the articletalk page; I will reply there. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I did! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dash_(cryptocurrency)#Releases Technoir2 (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Jytog,

Thanks for being so diligent in maintaining the DNA data storage entry. I am writing because it can be improved in several ways:

• Results in 2015/2016 by UIUC and UW/Microsoft demonstrated the ability to perform random access on data stored in DNA. These results were published in major peer reviewed venue and are cited frequently in recent advances.
• In 2016, Microsoft/UW encoded an HD Movie from the Ok Go band. It was part of the 200MB world record that was announced and later published in Nature Biotech in March 2018 (long editing lag!), the premiere scientific venue for biotech-related results.
• There have been multiple major public research programs (DARPA Molecular Informatics and I-ARPA Molecular Information Storage Technologies) in the last year that could be featured, to show that there is building momentum.

The reason I care is that people that want to know more go to wikipedia, but as is it is not pointing to the really fast developments in this field.

I am happy to help offering more information and links if you want. I tried editing the page, but you keep undoing it, so it might better for us to agree on how to improve the article.

Thanks for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zambraia (talk • contribs) 16:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Please post at Talk:DNA digital data storage, and I will reply there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Jytdog,

I appreciate you reverting my most recent edits, at first it hurt a bit, but after reading your user page I think I'm getting it. After graduate school I found a job where part of my responsibilities include parsing continuing medical education for local MDs, so I'm around this information often and felt like I should share it with the world.

I have some questions,

Is there a commonly accepted source for medical information that you and other super-editors trust? in graduate school it was 90% pubmed and NIH.

I just read your user page, and I very much appreciate the information I read there.

Is anonymity part of the mystique of Wikipedia, or are there meetup groups and a big in-person community?

Thank you!

Karmaticfutures (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I am laughing over the goat image! I like goats. Pleased to meet you!

Last thing first. In Wikipedia, people can be pseudonymous if they want and if they choose that, their privacy is strictly protected by the WP:OUTING policy. Some people edit under their real names of have disclosed it here in WP; that is their choice too. There are lots of WP meetups and there is of course the big Wikimania conference every year. You can check out WP:Meetup as a jumping off point; hopefully you can find some place near where you live.

About sources, heck yes. Pubmed is the first stop; just make sure you filter for "reviews" and of course look out for predatory publishers and avoid them. :) NHS and NICE are also very, very good btw. I do urge you to check out WP:MEDHOW, WP:MEDRES, and WP:MEDMOS, and to include WT:MED on your watchlist -- that is where folks in WikiProject Medicine discuss stuff. You will find lots of good eggs there.

Finally, I was wondering what your deal is -- many of the refs that you have been brought have been great and I was happy to see you add them, and see how you used them. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dennis Prager, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Brooks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Jytdog for the useful Wiki links - I'm now 10 edits in, so should help in getting me up to speed! Xb5210 (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome. Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I hope that you are well. Do you have a few minutes to review my recent edit? I would greatly appreciate a second set of eyes on it. Another editor added in the Cochrane review, and I made some changes. Thank you! JenOttawa (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog. Hope your summer (or perhaps your winter depending upon which hemisphere you're living in) was a good one. I'm not sure how to deal with this draft. I think there's a strong possibility that Kimberlyosoep (the draft's creator) and PANalytical (the uploader of File:Malvern Panalytical logo.jpg) are connected in some way; they've both edited PANalytical and there would be no way for the former to know about the file uploaded by the latter within a minute of being uploaded without there being some connection. My guess is that they are the same person, and the new account was probably created due to the User talk:PANalytical#Managing a conflict of interest. Since the new account wasn't autoconfirmed, it couldn't upload the logo; so, the old account was used instead.

Anyway, this is still techincially a draft and my understanding is that COI editors are given a little room to maneuver when it comes to draft. It could also be that the editor is making a good-faith attempt to avoid WP:ORGNAME; however, at the same time, this may be a case of undisclosed paid editing which is pretty much never given any leeway regardless. I thought about tagging the draft with {{Undisclosed paid}} or {{COI}}, but those are mainly for articles, right? So, I then thought maybe you would have an idea on how to best proceed here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have declined the submission as an advertisement. Strikerforce^Talk 16:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

yep. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

You quickly reverted an edit I did without leaving a comment. Did I break a rule? I thought I referenced carefully enough (and have seen forums where people are wondering about this, so it appeared useful to add here).

Please teach me what I did wrong if you know better than I do. Not seeing any comments but work simply being reverted is rather discouraging.

-Rick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:93A5:1:ACF0:EE15:D104:87E7 (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I did leave an edit note, here. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

To Follow up on your comment from Aug 16, I am not related to Mark Bisnow and it's not an autobiography. It is also not a paid post. I understand your suspicions but I am simply writing about a subject I know well. You can look at the references provided, which are all from mainstream sources. You can delete the entry if you ultimately decide it's not notable, there is nothing to be gained or lost. If I can do anything to improve neutrality please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-contrib-acct (talk • contribs) 05:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I see you left a message on my discussion page and removed all information that I have submitted to wikipedia as it is apparently "marketing or spam". Although I am not affiliated with any of these institutions, I do take personal interest in US and international business school history, culture, and related processes. The information I have submitted is all genuine information that, if you had taken the time to research or know more about business schools, are valid and non-promotional. The reason for my name is so that I could focus on a particular known group of business schools to write about on this account. I understand your actions were done with good intent, but either read the sources for yourself or rest assured that I am not marketing or spamming false information. Please leave a reply on my talk page if this needs further clarification. - m7bswiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by M7bswiki (talk • contribs) 05:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog. This was posted on your user page so I moved it here. Feel free to change the header to whatever you think appropriate. MarnetteD|Talk 05:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Jytdog (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, except by the Cigarette Smoking Man, but. —PaleoNeonate – 01:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

"Your comments on that source are rhetoric without substance." That's rude. WP:AGF.BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

it is true and not incivil. I have no tolerance for bullshit. You are disinvited from posting here. Jytdog (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Please note the policy on civility per WP:CIVIL, your comments on other editors who disagree with you (which is nearly all of them) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yakult is rude. An ANI will be considered if you continue this way. Hzh (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes – please try to avoid faecal metaphors, even when justified. They don't strengthen your case, and they don't win you allies. Maproom (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a point well taken. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear colleague, how can I include a new perspective about stuttering which includes stuttering as a manifestation of neurodiversity? I do not want to promote myself, just to include that perspective. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristóbal Loriente (talk • contribs) 07:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Our mission is to provide articles that summarize accepted knowledge. We are not "cutting edge", nor are we a place to promote new ideas. So - if it is indeed accepted knowledge that stuttering is a form of neurodiversity, there should be high quality sources where experts in the field describe (in places aiming to provide "the state of the art in the field", like a literature review or a scholarly book) neurodiversity that also discuss stuttering. If there are any, please cite them and summarize what they say. btw, you find User:Jytdog/How helpful, as well as User:Jytdog#NPOV_part_1:_secondary_sources... Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the pfsense page is going crazy again. Might be worth looking into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.87.35.12 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Yep. i've asked for page protection. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I have to say, I was a little hurt by your closing comment on the AFD. I've put up with more crap from the keepist "improve it; don't delete it; I'll definitely help improve it after the AFD closes *wink wink*" crowd than most (I even linked to the two worst cases) -- maybe even than you -- so being grouped in with them was definitely quite a blow.

Anyway: I was about to take a stab at improving the article, but when I went back to it I found it hard to figure out what exactly your problem with what was currently there was. When I looked at the page history I noticed that you'd already removed quite a bit. At present the article makes no positive claims about the product's health benefits, and I think until, e.g., Andrew Davidson shows up and mass-reverts with the claim that "consensus at the AFD was to keep" or that "you need consensus to blank this much sourced content" or some such there is no problem. Am I missing something?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it is a source of frustration for me at AfD. Grrr. But sorry.

Yes it is fine now - I removed all the dogshit health marketing in this edit. Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• cc: @Ritchie333:

I'm confused. At AN/I, you highlighted the change to banning policy from last year, which changed 'Editors who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community"' to 'Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community"'. This would seem to have eliminated the classic discrepancy between a "community-imposed indef" and a "ban", as it quite explicitly equivocates the two concepts. Yet, in that same discussion, you also claim that a "community-imposed indef" is not the same thing as a "community ban". So, the question here is, was the update in policy not intended to include the notion that "Editors who are indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered 'community banned'"? Because that's what the policy says, as a result of the change you implemented. Swarm ♠ 23:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You are correct. I did make a mistake here. Thanks for pointing it out. I struck it which is a bit out of order but better than leaving it wrong. User:Accesscrawl my apologies to you and everyone else. Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

No apologies needed. No harm done. Swarm ♠ 07:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I need to know if you are an admin, or have other status here higher than an ordinary user Verdana♥Bold 18:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope, I am an ordinary user and not an admin. Btw you can see any user's privileges by going to their contribs page, and clicking on the link to "User rights" at the bottom of the page. My userrights are here. Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Your recent user page update reminded me of this, in case you'd like it. I don't remember what the original was, as many have created their own variants in their favorite languages (and have written two variants myself), but a search should find several. You may already know it, too... —PaleoNeonate – 07:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Perfectly awful.  :) I was not familiar with that. Similar to the Chopra generator. Jytdog (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

And I didn't know that one. —PaleoNeonate – 10:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

"Transcendence is in the midst of potential space time events." Well, can't argue with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

I noticed you reverted an edit to the modafinil page I made because it lacked a secondary source and only had a primary source.

I have a secondary source ( a systematic clinical review) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16669720) that also addresses modafinil for post-anesthesia sedation. It is on page 6.

Would that suffice as a secondary source?

best wishes,

gardenofalpeh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gardenofaleph (talk • contribs) 18:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

In the research section, sure. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Gardenofaleph (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Can I then add the primary source for clarification of the details of the study or should I not link to it at all?

Please don't use it at all. Please just summarize what the review says. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I will do so now. Thanks for your clarifications. Gardenofaleph (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you going to request EditorDownUnder's ban be lifted in favour of a simply community block or site ban that can be logged on their user page rather than clogging up WP:RESTRICT? They were indef-blocked one month after they were one-way IBANned, so the logging at RESTRICT was effectively useless (those logs are really only useful for long-term issues where memories are liable to fade) and there was little doubt that they were NOTHERE to begin with. I requested this guy's one-way IBAN be lifted for the sole purpose of getting my name removed from RESTRICT, and he wasn't even indef-blocked.

That said, if you want to propose a sanction on David Tornheim, who definitely seems to be hounding you (he's edited two ANI threads in the last sixteen months, both related to you, and his comments in both have been serving to undermine you, which would be suspicious enough if he had no prior history with you whatsoever), I would definitely support that.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

On the first thing, no. I don't think about these people and it is not worth doing anything unless they pick up again. On the second, it is my impression that no one pays much mind to Tornheim when they do that stuff. Jytdog (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Good thinking. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Not thinking = good thinking sometimes? sounds chopra-esque! Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, he does make a lot of money, maybe there's something to it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Something, yes. But what? "Perception transcends the doorway to photons" Jytdog (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Transcend perception in one hand, shit in the other, see which one fills up first. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Now there are some angels dancing on pinheads. Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

If you get shafted with one of those easily gameable two-way IBANs (it's probably now reached a point where even though almost everyone is in agreement you did nothing wrong, "the community" probably won't accept your refusal if you request not to be treated to a two-way sanction "for your own protection"), a lot of experienced editors have now observed that you are the victim of hounding by an editor who has specifically gamed the system in an attempt to get you in trouble. I have no doubt that a two-way IBAN will just be another tool in Andy's shed, but if you ever see that happen you can feel free to run it by me (via email, if need be) or to ping me when you report him. Softlavender (talk · contribs) is also pretty good with these things, and while Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) has not gotten involved yet (surprisingly, given how the only thing Andy's been able to throw at you that managed to stick, and the thing everyone else who isn't just making a good-faith "I don't like one-way IBANs" argument has honed in on, is that you used foul language...) knows his way around them too, in my experience. (That said, if the gaming on Andy's part was clear-cut enough, you could probably just ask Swarm or Bish to block him; they're "involved", but performing an administrative action that only an inappropriately involved admin would not would be unlikely to cause problems.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I am really not worried. Either way this goes, Andy will control himself, or he won't.Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, what was I pinged for? I assume this has to do with ANI and saying "fuck" a lot? The language is an issue only in the way it's used: there's a world of difference between saying "this is such a motherfucking mess" and "you are such a motherfucker". I don't know what "foul language" Jytdog has used or in what context, I don't think I've ever made a public statement about what I think of IBANs (two-way or otherwise), and I don't make a habit of visiting ANI (which is a motherfucking mess as often as not). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:18, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea, but fucking hell, hi! Jytdog (talk) 04:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Jytdog is up for a two-way IBAN because Andy Dingley manipulated a series of events to drag him to ANI, allegedly over a number of users supposedly calling him out for his foul language, which curiously included this comment by yours truly, though (quite transparently) in reality as a result of a long-held grudge over Jytdog having filed a "fake SPI" (that was CU-endorsed) back in 2016. Almost no one on ANI actually thinks the foul language, or even the outburst in which it was used, or the blanking of content, is sanctionable, and almost all are in agreement that an IBAN to protect Jytdog from more of this bullshit is in order, but the one-way option has run up against opposition both from (a) bad-faith friends of Andy and enemies of Jytdog and (b) good-faith editors who just don't like one-way IBANs, most of whom have actually never been subject to an IBAN themselves but are convinced that two-way IBANs are less liable to gaming than one-way, despite my authoritative voice on the matter telling them otherwise. I have seen absolutely no evidence that a two-way IBAN will not immediately be gamed, just subjective statements that "I'm not a fan of one-way IBANs" from editors who, unlike me, probably have no idea what they are talking about. I assume you know what I mean when I talk about bad-faith gaming of a two-way IBAN; your on-the-record disdain for the "He said fuck! Block him!" crowd is actually kinda peripheral to why I pinged you (I don't think Softlavender shares your view on that point anyway). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

—PaleoNeonate – 05:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender's on the record as disliking my manner of locution, but she's never called for sanctions against it (I wouldn't know if she has with someone else). Otherwise, you're just making ANI sound exactly like the ANI I know. I know well enough that IBANs have been gamed, but I don't have an opinion on whether they should or shouldn't be used, or about one-way vs two-way. As long as WP is policed by volunteer cops and drive-by mobs, anything and everything can and will be gamed. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri88, btw.... I believe you are trying to be kind, but i don't like wikipolitics nor even the appearance of them. If i am doing the right thing i expect that people will see that, and when I fuck up i expect to hear about that. That is how I operate too. Just saying. Jytdog (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

For the record, the ANI has been closed with a one-way IBAN as well as some good advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytog. I think there might be some undisclosed COI editing going on with respect to this article as explained at Talk:St Paul's Church, Auckland. So, I was wondering if you'd mind taking a look at it just in case I'm reading too much into things. I was going to post something on the editor's user talk, but thought it be best to get another opinion after seeing their response to another COI notification/post at User talk:E James Bowman#Scandrett Regional Park, especially since the circumstances in that case seem somewhat similar to this one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

A talented writer, which you surely are, ought to be able to select words that are functionally equivalent to "dogshit, but less controversial when assessing content. Words that may actually better describe the shortcomings of the content, so that the result of the discussions is a better encyclopedia. Words that do not scare away sincere productive young people from conservative cultures. Please select your words more carefully. Please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

To quote Bishonen, "I try to ration the word to where it's really, really needed. Please don't devalue a valuable expletive by overuse"

She was talking about a different word, but the principle is sound. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with Cullen328. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen. Jytdog (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I could mistaken but I have the impression that Special:Contributions/Tuchler smells of COI? What brought it to my attention was Martin Zielke and Special:Permalink/858000802 (then also noticing this, but the latter is disclosed and seems to be someone else). Your input is welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 03:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

This is very borderline and I am very unsure. This person may just have an interest in corporate bios. The bank rep stepping in has not helped but rather complicated things... Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we'll see how future edits unfold, thanks again for your help, —PaleoNeonate – 04:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

can you please give an explanation why you took my paragraph down from the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbunbu (talk • contribs) 03:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

my edit note said not OK per WP:MEDRS and I left you this message on your user talk page (User talk:Chrisbunbu). Did you look at WP:MEDRS or read that message on your talk page? Jytdog (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I wondered if you could give me some advice about engaging with BusinessExpert99. I've had a discussion with him on his Talk page and he's clearly cross and is talking about ceasing to contribute to Wikipedia. He's a new editor and I'd like to retain him if possible - do you have any thoughts? Many thanks, Tacyarg (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a hard one. The person is already pretty angry.

This sort of thing happens a lot, exactly due to our open nature and the lack of any orientation process for new users. Some people come on in, start doing stuff, fail, and get angry and leave. That is how some people behave in new environments.

To help save this person from him or herself, you have to engage them in conversation. You'll have to pet them a bit to soothe them -- explain that it is hard to learn and lots of people struggle at first, and that it just takes time and they will figure it out if they keep at it.

But then comes the very hard task of helping them see what we actually do here, and how we do it. Some people won't see that, and if they won't, they will be happier doing something else with their time. Some people will see it.

This person seems to be writing about a small group of people. Likely, people they know. This is not uncommon but is a bad way to start because a) there is so much temptation to "write what you know" instead of summarizing sources, and b) generally there is poor judgement about notability in such situations; and c) if they do have a COI, the conflict of interest makes it all the harder for the person to see what we do here (as opposed to seeing the opportunity to promote whatever their external interest is).

It is often useful to ask a person who has edited this way, for a disclosure of any connections with subjects they have written about, so that you understand where they are coming from - that understanding will help you help them to get oriented. I imagine people have their own ways of doing that. Mine is here.

If it is helpful to you, I wrote User:Jytdog/How which tries to explain what our mission is, and how we try to realize it. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that's useful. This user has now been banned for sockpuppetry, but I'll remember what you say for the future. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Too far gone to help. ah well. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I wondered if you had seen the DYK? mention of biblical criticism--I thought you might approve. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

That's great! Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

We worked it for nearly two months, and a shortened version of the original suggestion is the best we did! Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that process can really drag out. I did it once, just to see what it was like. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I did it one other time on the Bible and humor--Grabergs nominated that one--and it didn't drag out quite as long as this one, so maybe they aren't always that bad. Gerda nominated this one. She does lots of DYK? Mostly though I didn't think this was the best hook. Once someone has taken against an idea though, it's dead. No amount of defending it will save it. So the one I liked best came to an ignominious end. :-) I was hoping for more hits on the page as a result and maybe someone interested enough to show up and go through the FAC--so far nothing. This article was a long shot for FAC anyway, but I had to at least try--right? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Right! Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello again. I know you're thrilled to hear from me again, (humor) but I wanted to be sure and tell you that, in spite of the fact neither one of us is 100% satisfied with how things turned out, I think all in all, for two strong minded people, we can both be proud for persevering, for giving a little and getting a little, and for the result. I wasn't sure the two of us--working together--were capable of that. (more humor) But we did it. You kept your cool all the way through this time, which enabled me to regain mine, so I wanted to sincerely thank you for that. (no humor at all there) I also wanted to tell you that content wise, I think your addition to the responses section turned out to be more of an improvement than I thought it would be. I went back and tweaked a little of the other two sections in response to that addition, and the whole section is stronger and more interesting because of it. I am thoroughly pleased with the result. I know you adapted on that one too, so again, thank you. Jytdog, you can be so nice sometimes! And so the opposite at others! (humor) It keeps me a little off-balance where you are concerned, but I am hoping that perhaps we have turned a corner--you may actually have turned it ahead of me--which is okay since I am following close behind. If we have really moved into a new comradeship here, I would like to invite you to take a look at the next big article redo I am working on, Ethics in the Bible. If you decide to come and yell at me some there, I feel confident you will do so first at the absence of division between Old and New T. I interpreted the title to equate to "Biblical ethics" which is a field of study in and of itself, and have gone from there onto various topics. I have confidence your input would be worth having. (no humor at all) But I do know you're busy and it's okay if you can't. Anyway, I wanted to say thank you, and I appreciate how you handled things, and the final result--which is better than Brittanica's if you go look--was worth it. (no humor at all) Thanx again Jytdog. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure we are quite done at the criticism page, but we are getting there.... You are welcome and thanks for working with me too. I will look at the biblical ethics page. Btw have you had time to dig into the Boys and Levenson pieces? This is so important. Christian salvation history defined over-against Judaism is so deeply rooted in the Christian tradition, and is all over the place in content in Wikipedia, even as it is being rooted out of the scholarly fields.... Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not finished but am reading. I am genuinely interested so I will finish them. I have an Israeli friend that tells me all the time that I have a Jewish soul. :-) I think that's the nicest compliment I've ever received. I have run across several good cooperative works between Jewish and Christian writers these days. I find the fact of that collaboration as fascinating as the books themselves. One of our mutually adored writers--Tykva Frymer-Kensky--recently helped edit a book titled "Christianity In Jewish Terms" that I thought was excellent--of course everything she works on is. Things are definitely changing which is a very good thing. I'm glad I have lived long enough to see it. So--I'm almost afraid to ask--but what are you still unhappy about at BC? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog! I went to the historical Jesus page. I was going to see if I could agree you were right about moving all the historical Jesus stuff there --or not-- and what I wrote on criteria is there! When did you move it there? Why didn't you tell me? It wasn't there the first time I looked at that page! GD it all!! It does fit there, and now I'm thinking you were right along, and it is really pissing me off because now I feel really stupid and it's just because it was you and the way you have done things with me from the start. I get my back up as soon as I see your name. GD Jytdog! I just shot myself in the proverbial foot over nothing. You took what I wrote and put it in another article and I couldn't feel more humiliated if you had taken out an ad and plastered my name everywhere. You were right. GD! You were right. You should have told me, but still, you were right. The rest of it should all go there too. God bless America--I don't know what has been more of a struggle for me--you calling everything crap or you accepting what I wrote and moving it where it works the best. Do you hate everything I write or don't you? I don't know what to do now. Interacting with you turns me upside down every time. If I take this off of BC and move it into HJ will you fight me there or won't you? AArgh! This is making me crazy! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Go look please. We have ended up exactly where you set out to go. Just shoot me and put me out of my misery. I'm sorry Jytdog. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

So...it turns out I am two kinds of idiot and everything else you've ever implied about me. I went back and looked and finally clicked on that link and saw that you did tell me about moving criteria. I didn't know because I didn't look...because I am an idiot and deserve some of the things you've said. Eating crow now--and will be eating it for a long time I'm thinking. Not only were you right, but I was a putz about it from beginning to end. You have my most genuine, deepest--and most thoroughly humiliated--apologies that have ever been offered. I will do better dealing with you in the future. I promise. I am so so sorry Jytdog. I can't say it enough. I am enjoying Levinson by the way, and so far I have agreed with everything he says. If I decide to argue with something he says--I promise to leave you alone!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I am glad you are finding the Levenson fruitful and are pleased with the content at Historical Jesus. Jytdog (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh wow, thanx! Hey, since you have participated in Biblical criticism becoming what it is now--how about doing a review at FAC? ALL your comments there can be negative!  :-) Just teasing!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You have sort of opened a discussion at WT:MEDRS. Please continue there.

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I was here on WP years before you got here. And the person recently and repeatedly sanctioned for edit-warring and topic-pushing, would be YOU. Do not warn me about your own editing problems. I'm fine. It's you who historically rub people the wrong way on WP. SBHarris 05:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think I've missed in my conversations with VAndring, but the piling on is unnecessary. They have concerns about BLP violations at Scott Wagner, saying that the article has been edited by his political opponent. I am assuming good faith in my interactions, ignoring the anger and frustration that keeps coming out, and trying to get to the bottom of any concerns. I want the same thing as you do—an article that's accurate and neutral. Bradv 02:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You are doing great! Thanks for that. Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

While I'm not sure their efforts were entirely successful, the article is much improved. Thanks for the support. Bradv 06:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Creationism and NPOV and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, funplussmart (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

This arbitration case request has been closed. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

You read my mind. I was wondering why an AE case wasn't filed regarding the Is Genesis History? page. The ANI discussion is too disjointed and the folks are not able to see things properly, myself included. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It may come to that. The ANI was a useful first step.Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Editør/Archive. I think this is a spammer. What do you think? Guy (Help!) 21:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

the quacking, the quacking! PROMO for sure. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For calling the Wikipedia project, beautiful and for defending the project against the hordes of Visigoths that seek to corrupt, subvert and destroy it. scope_creep (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, —PaleoNeonate – 11:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You have reversed me adding about the ethnic background of the said person. I was just on the process of adding references, but you reversed without much time given. About his Assyrian and Armenian origin, see for example his own post in his own Facebook account post. Here is his post message to President Donald Trump : message. Just listen to the first 2 sentences where he mentions his ethnicity and the actual name of his father David Ben-David (Assyrian) and his mother Boghossian (an Armenian). werldwayd (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss content on the article talk page. Please be careful in sourcing - we can discuss there. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I have posted the same at Talk:Patrick Bet-David for discussion and reinstating his clear Assyrian and Armenian descent. werldwayd (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Earlier I left changes regarding the brain utilization of glucose and ketones, but it appears that this has been undone. Please explain the issue as to why this occurred. I have a PhD in neurophysiology and biochemistry. The changes I made were textbook understandings of neuronal and brain function and clarified incomplete information regarding the site. I also serve as an editor-in-chief for the Journal of Evolution and Health (jevohealth.com).

Perhaps I've done something procedurally wrong?? If so, please advise.

Sincerely, David C Pendergrass, PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpendergrass (talk • contribs) 22:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your note! I left you a "welcome" message at your talk page, at User talk:Drpendergrass. Please check it out. And welcome! Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome and the medical article guidelines.

So that you are aware, I’ve created a new discussion ‘Definitions’ on the Talk page of the low-carbohydrate diet article to ask for your revert of my edits to be reversed. As you will see, I removed the unsourced part of the first sentence and added a plain English version of the complete Definitions from Table 1 of reference 2.

The article, as it stands, is incoherent, as someone had clearly marked over a year ago. Looking at the talk history, it seems others too have tried to improve the article but been rebuffed. Can it be so difficult to write a neutral article about low carbohydrate diets? I am aware of several recent references (both positive and negative) which are clearly missing from the article. Presumably others are too.

obhi 06:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlactyol (talk • contribs) 06:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss content at the article talk page. See WP:BRD. I will respond there. Jytdog (talk) 06:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Fireice (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh my. Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Your wholesale revert has left the article with an inaccurate heading. You mentioned that you wanted to expand the article yourself. Do you still plan on doing that? Fireice (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the unsigned edit war warning on my talk page, in my 10 years at WP I have never been to AN3 (which should not be taken that I'm more experienced, note that I have referred to you as a more senior editor couple days ago). I would appreciate a reply in the article's talk section instead though Fireice (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC) (redacted Fireice (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC), marked as such by me Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC))

I'm sorry you got so fixated on the above comment. Perhaps this will help  ? Fireice (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

What I am frustrated by, is that you are aggressively pushing for the content you want as though the world were on fire, and consistently trying to brush off discussion of the behavior issues, including with the claim above. The way you are behaving, pushing and PUSHING and PUSHING for the content you want and ignoring the behavioral discussion, is exactly how every unself-aware conflicted editor behaves. I am out of patience with you. (btw if you want to withdraw the claim above you can strike it. See WP:REDACT) Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I amended it. On my part I feel like you are actively avoiding questions that are designed to build consensus . And I'm still not sure what behavioural issues you are talking about as you have refused to elaborate beyond "RTFM". Fireice (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Please stay off my talk page. You'll either mind COI and the GS or you won't, and I will deal with that at whatever board is required. I will deal with content with you at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your message here. I recommend that you take a break for a day or two, and then review your own responses to people attempting to engage politely with you on the article in question. You've been polite enough to me, but your aggression towards people who presume to work on the article itself is harmful. Please remember that Wikipedia is about the content, not about the contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.145.104.127 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm fine. I urge you to review the conflict of interest guideline at WP:COI and disclose any crypto holdings you have,. as well as WP:GS/Crypto. I will give you formal notice of them on your talk page Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. It's been a while since I last read Wikipedia's COI guidance, but the underlying thinking seems to have stayed the same. I do not recommend wheeling out COI as a tool for avoiding two-way discussion. If you discern COI influences in a contribution, then you should certainly point them out to the contributor; but please take care not to undermine genuine COI concerns by indiscriminately shouting "COI!". A contributor who's being accused of one COI by one editor is going to find it especially galling to be accused of a mutually opposing COI by another editor. I've read the rest the the Talk page, and I'm picking up a lot of "We don't like this person making a sound case for his edits; lets hit him with a COI complaint that's too vague for him to answer." It's a shame that Wikipedia has degenerated into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.145.104.127 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not what I am doing. You can read about my approach to COI management on my talk page if you like. The problem here is that Fireice is ignoring the COI guideline as well as the GS. If they were engaging with them they would be behaving differently, but I cannot even get them to engage on this fundamental thing. The content is slowly moving toward resolution, quite separately from these behavioral issues. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Good morning, I’d like to contest the Speedy deletion nomination of David F. Alfonso page based on undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic. I am not receiving any compensation for this content. I have createdt Mr. Alfonso’s page due to his military contributions. Please let me know how can proceed to resolve. Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvinlaing (talk • contribs) 11:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Cough cough http://laingco.com/empire-rebranded/. Indef block is incoming SmartSE (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Huge spelling mistake on Cathay Pacific plane Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Abulous! Jytdog (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! Thank you so much for the feedback on news articles! So helpful to know about the news articles. For the advocacy organizations, this seems to conflict with some information I received here previously. This document, which we call "Evidence Updates," is what I'm referring to: Evidence Update for Clinicians You can see another one, written for patients here Is this different? Again, thanks so much for your help! Nytodc (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

You made the same reply at WT:MEDRS. I'll reply there. Jytdog (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

You wrote: Hi! It seems like you have a very strong interest in phage therapy. That is an interesting field, and our content could use some updating. But there are some problems with your editing, with regard to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider creating an account, so we can talk more easily? If you do, please drop me a note at my talk page, so I can help you get oriented. Best regards. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

So please let me know what needs improvement. Please be specific.

Thanks.

Riffstilde (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have left some messages at your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your message but it does not help. I read the litterature you asked me to read. I need to know what was wrong. I guess the way to go is to use the talk page to discuss on it? I wrote to you directly because you asked me to do so. Thank you.

Riffstilde (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I asked you to let me know here, when you had created an account. Please do see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Sir, thank you for your good observations on my draft on Yahoshea. Truly, I have passion to write on the Sacred Name Movement as Christians have passion to write about Christian contents. A Christian posted "Jesus Christ", a Muslim posted about Islamic figure " Mohammad". In Sacred Name Movement, "Yahshua" had been posted. But the group is having many adherent that prefer "Yahoshea". This can be proven by the independent references I have cited as well as many other available contents in the Google that preferred use of the name Yahoshea for the Hebrew Messiah. These may serve as the required authorities for the use of Yahoshea amidst Sacred Name Movement as my post presented. Sir, I didn't cite myself, any of my works or those of my organization as reference. This makes the references to be independent from me. I will still love directions on areas of my mistake so that I will make amendment. Thank you and have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahzitere Yahmarabhi (talk • contribs) 18:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, but the sources are two self-published books and a blog. That is not going to cut it, for notability. And no, while people do edit what they are interested in, people who come to Wikipedia only to promote something are not using their editing privileges appropriately. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

My username change request has been queued and is awaiting approval from a steward or global renamer. I will be notified by email when the request is processed. Current username Teamfrank Requested username Freddie at the frank agency — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teamfrank (talk • contribs) 13:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Step 2 is complete - dealing with the other account; making disclosure at this account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddie at the frank agency (talk • contribs) 19:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cannabichromene, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages CB2 and CB1 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Can I interest you in taking a look at cannabichromene with an eye toward WP:MEDRS? You seem to have a good handle on how that policy should be applied to chemical compounds. ChemNerd (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I will do! Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks like Zefr got to it before you, but thanks for your help too! ChemNerd (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Now that I am in process of retiring from my dietary supplement consulting business, I wanted to share a spelling error (or else a Freudian slip?) that nearly got me in trouble when corresponding with potential clients. Thank the old gods and the new for spell check! When I started my business back in 2004 my wife had a T-shirt made for me. On the front "Conslutant" (with the quote marks). On the back: Someone who gives advice away for free when they should be charging for it. David notMD (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

"Mandatory paid editing disclosure" seems to be a mistake here, as their edit just changed passive voice to active voice in a few sentences. It looks like some articles, including Fischer & Söhne AG, are being suggested to users who create an account (I think I've read somewhere that this was being done, but can't remember where) and here it's probably a suggestion for copy editing. Some of the new accounts are vandals, others are paid editors making edits to become autoconfirmed so they can create new articles, but many are here to contribute legitimately. Peter James (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hm. Hm. OK I will remove the disclosure thing. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I am wondering if this guy is not paid to do vandalism on Wikipedia. It is crazy! 80.12.27.215 (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• Jytdog, maybe I misunderstood you at ANI, but you may need to look at that article again. IP, that is really a dumb accusation. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 80.12.27.215 Please familiarize yourself with wikipedia's paid editing policy, and also WP:BRD, you really need to stop insisting on banning anyone who removes promotional editing. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The main problem is EulerObama is a POV, negative behavior and vandal user blocked already twice for that. And he is doing again and again. Main issues are in front of us. 80.12.27.215 (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

EulerObama needs to read as well, my feeling is he is paid. And I remove nobody, this is administor who blocked him twice. 80.12.27.215 (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Who is administor who blocked him twice? Tornado chaser (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Have a look on the black log man, this is very easy. Have a look as well on his behavior with the history. I am putting warnings, and I am not the only one, and you choose to ignore, that is your decision. 80.12.27.215 (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• I have fixed the header. ESME-Sudria is promotional garbage, and so are the pages about other schools owned by IONIS Education Group. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
• Not at all, specially if you compare to other schools. But our job to write better the article, that means we don’t need a POV user doing vandalism and most probably pay to do that to be with us. That kid just my feeling. 80.12.27.215 (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You are gunning for an indef, IP. Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I have just ask him if he is paid to do what he is doing. We will see the answer. 80.12.27.215 (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get this article? I would like to use it to add some more content to BC. Thanx. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

done. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

This is totally cool of you. Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Jytdog, how do you know, that somebody posted on the article Talk page? I just wanted to add a secondary source. But, as you know, I'm not allowed.--Jeanpol (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I'm relatively new to editing and was not familiar with "Talk" pages or "Edit wars". I will proceed as advised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foodtraveller (talk • contribs) 14:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I hope you took the time to read through it. I firmly stand by what I am saying and who I am. Please take into account all of my actions, especially in context. No matter what, I believe you are just trying to do your best for the community, so there is no ill will. Thanks very much x Soulman1125 (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this an unreliable source? I didn't know. Is it meant to be like the UK's "Daily Mail" or something?Eugene-elgato (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See WP:Breitbart. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The oppose iVotes are remarkably indicative of ... something ... -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 12:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, okay thanks guysEugene-elgato (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

And it made you edit My Little Pony. That's so sweet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You are not a dog, but I'm a fish, and that's quite the fireworks display, albeit hidden, that you just had here. I'm just dropping by in a friendly way to say that I'm sorry that you got hit by that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. This person or people thought WP is like social media, but it isn't. Through page protections, blacklisting, and revdels this stuff doesn't fly for long, nor stick around. I'm grateful to all the admins who have been responsive.Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, someone really needs a hobby. Sorry Jytdog. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that. I didn't take it personally but I (like, I am sure, most people who saw all that) am dismayed that we live in such dark times, where that kind of hate rolls around. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and feedback. I have to run out the door and will be offline until tomorrow (most likely). If you have any suggestions, I welcome them at anytime. You can email me or continue to chat via WikiProject Medicine. Talk later. JenOttawa (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

OK! Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Got sucked back to my computer. Thanks again for touching base. The plan is for students to make content suggestions on the talk pages first, hopefully this will help. Do keep in touch with any other thoughts.JenOttawa (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Please re-open that discussion. Humanengr (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

done.Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Our discussion regarding restoring an independent "multisystem proteinopathy" page seems to have fallen through the cracks again. It's now been languishing since April. If you don't have time to get back to this, can you please point me to someone else who can help? Thanks. 192.55.208.10 (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

This issue needs attention. Can you please help or direct me to someone who can? Posted on the IBM talk page as well.192.55.208.10 (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

We're approaching the six-month mark since this issue was first raised. If you are unable to help with this page, please let me know how I should proceed. Posting on the IBM talk page as well.192.55.208.10 (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I readded the second part of the page that I expanded, it is information on the founders taken directly from the Wait But Why article on Neuralink. The first part was just a clarification of what the company claims to be - do you consider this to be a problem because the description is taken from Neuralink's official website? AntonSamuel (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss content at the article talk page. Please be aware that it is WP:BRD and BRRD. Jytdog (talk)

The RfC on the Feynman Prize article expired a couple of days ago. I'm wondering how you'd like to proceed. It looks pretty clear to me by the !votes that there's no consensus to remove content, with the exception of the photographs. Would you support settling this by removing the photos and keeping the rest of the content, and avoiding waiting for an administrative close? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Lots of people !voted; we should wait for it to be closed. You can post at the RfC close request section at AN if you want to hasten the day. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

That's fair. I'm a bit worried because there have been some questionable closes on past discussions on this article, and having another questionable close at this point would be a big problem. I guess we'll just wait for the close. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The distinction I make between spam and non-spam in this field in describing someone's career is that

• explaining why the problem is important is spam; discussing what medical therapies it possibly might lead to is spam.
• describing what fields someone has worked on is not spam ( I consider the official CV or university web p. sufficient reference, but it can be supplemented by a ref to a much-cited paper in a major journal. )

Bios should be meaningful, not just a list of degrees and positions. for removing promotionalism , a great deal can be done just by removing adjectives and grants and minor awards. Ideally the contributor should do that, but it is unrealistic to expect them to do it by suggested edits on the talk p. If they cannot be trusted to work on the main p., the best people to do this is editors like ourselves. Possibly we might need to start using PC1 , much as I hate it. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not agree with leaving the work of PR people intact. As you have said many times, once we become a vehicle for promotion, there is nothing left. Better to stubify it until something decent can be created than to leave industrial waste. And academic spam is worse since it has the ivory tower guise. Wikipedia is just something to abuse from the point of view of these academic PR people. Nothing to do with our mission. Not a god damn thing. Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Academic_spamming_the_long_arm_of_Lankenau_Institute_for_Medical_Research Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, you edited the WP article of MDPI in the past and currently, the article contains misinformation in the lead section that is not in line with WP’s guidelines for creating a MOS:LEAD. I contacted another editor as well, but did not receive a response - hence my message to you. As I understand, the lead section should give emphasis to material that reflects its importance to the topic. As I am an employee of MDPI, I was asked by you not to make changes directly to the article but post on the Talk:MDPI page. However, so far there have been no comment to the following change proposals. Can I ask for your help or advice?

1) The Beall issue still features prominently in the lead section, despite the fact that MDPI had nothing to do with Beall’s decision to take down his list. MDPI was added end 2014 and, after we contacted him, removed shortly thereafter in 2015. We had no reason to spend time and effort to get his list taken down years after he had removed MDPI for the list. Another open access publisher may have been in contact with his university, but I do not know the details: https://forbetterscience.com/2017/09/18/frontiers-vanquishers-of-beall-publishers-of-bunk/ Therefore, I would suggest that the Beall issue is either discussed in the main body (removed from the lead section), or that after the sentence “Beall later wrote that he had been pressured to shut down the list due to pressure on his institution from various publishers, specifically mentioning MDPI", the sentence is added: "Beall’s supervisor and institution both refuted Beall's claims that there had been any pressure to take down his list", referring to the following source where Beall's former supervisor, Shea Swauger, clarifies that "CU Denver disagrees with Jeffrey Beall’s assertion that he was pressured by the university to take down his website, scholaryoa.com, earlier this year": https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/16837/18435.
 I do not know why JB finally decided to remove the list, but nobody within the MDPI team was in contact with him or his university after the appeal in 2015.

2) The information in the lead section on the data breach is very misleading, as the e-mail addresses and contact information of authors, editors and board members are publicly available on the MDPI.com website (the e-mail addresses of authors are accessible on the article page, as well as those of editors and editorial board members). We also publish the names of reviewers regularly in the journal. The lead section in its current form gives the impression that sensitive data was stolen and that this is a key issue for MDPI. A lead section should highlight the most important information about a subject. This is simply not the case – a weak source was used to add negative information, without the subject even being discussed in the body of the article. Therefore, I suggest to remove the data breach information from the lead, and move it to a separate section and adding the sentence: "No data of a sensitive nature was impacted and the contact information of authors, editors and board members are made publicly available on the MDPI website per default", referring to the following source: https://haveibeenpwned.com/PwnedWebsites

I am really struggling with the fact that WP is trusted as a source but, at present, contains misinformation. Any help or advice you can provide is much appreciated. ErskineCer (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Jytdog. It is a mystery to me, what you think was wrong with my edit, but it is not a perfect world. I'm available to address your concerns. No telepressure ;-) --87.170.195.154 (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi again :-) I am sad that you have not given me a short reply. WP is a dreadful world. Your extensive deletions were inappropriate and reduced the quality of the article. But alas I may be bias i just read one of his books. Please consider it again. But at least check the article and fix that citation mistake. --87.170.203.247 (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I pinged you twice and invited you to the discussion page. And asked you here at your talk page twice. I don’t want to throw more words into the space between my ask and the your response, but you... you master the Pause. ;-) --87.170.197.133 (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, I see that you have reverted edits I made on the Josh Hawley page, describing them as "absurdly POV." You have also placed a warning on my user page about discretionary sanctions. With respect, you may want to take another look at the situation.

The material I removed from the Hawley page was removed following a discussion on the talk page between me and another editor concerning excessive detail on the page and the advisability of trimming some unimportant content. If you review the talk page, you will see that there is no edit war about this.

There is a content dispute between me and another editor regarding one sentence. The sentence relates to Hawley having declined to answer a question from the media about Donald Trump. It is my position that a politician's non-answer to a reporter's question is not important or encyclopedic. The other editor has taken the view that the paragraph from which the sentence was drawn stated a political position that was relevant. I made a constructive edit, moving the other sentence of the paragraph to a section that I thought was appropriate and deleting the Trump-related sentence. If you take issue with me removing that one sentence, please feel free to take it to the talk page and we can discuss it there. I have no problem with that. But the accusation of POV editing is not accurate, and I believe you're overreacting with the warning on my user page. Now that you know the situation, I'd respectfully ask that you remove that warning. SunCrow (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss content at the article talk page. Thanks.

You have edited aggressively, and the DS are in place. Please remain mindful. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I approached you on your user page not to discuss content, but to discuss your characterization of my edit and your overreaction on my user page. Apparently, you're doubling down. I would invite you to be mindful of WP:AGF. SunCrow (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You will be mindful of the DS on american politics, or not. Your editing privileges are yours to keep or have restricted. Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

My editing privileges are in no danger of being restricted, but thanks for your misplaced concern. SunCrow (talk) 06:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

You should not have to ask for a COI disclosure twice regarding blockchain content - failure to disclose a conflict of interest is grounds for an immediate block and/or topic ban under WP:GS/Crypto if the user has been warned of the sanctions regime. I have enacted both. Remember, this is the exact reason why the sanctions exist. MER-C 16:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action there. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog - I left a comment on the Ludwig Cancer Research Talk page regarding the “this article contains content that is written like an advertisement” tag. Spintendo suggested I reach out to you directly, since you are the editor who assigned the template originally. I’d appreciate if you could take a look at my comment and consider removing the tag, given the note I shared. Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions.Cancerres (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, can you explain your reasoning on this edit? Another editor has put the ref back, and it's not clear to me what you don't like about it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is weird, right? A person came to WP and refspammed links to pieces at washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Markipedia_1 and of course all of these contribs except the first few: Special:Contributions/Markipedia_1 Jytdog (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I partially agree with your approach to closing articles but I am concerned it could become a tactic for editors to prematurely shut down debates. I don't believe Wikipedia guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Closing_vs_archiving support closing discussions which are still active. What do you think? Keith Johnston (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of talk pages, is to work out concrete changes to the article based on reliable sources and the P&G. Please identify the closed discussions at Talk:White privilege where that was happening.

If you want to change the article, please do the work of finding high quality sources, reading them, and providing content proposals summarizing them. Jytdog (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I take this advise seriously. I have made an attempt following the suggestions you have outlined.Keith Johnston (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog (talk) Your recent edits on Farber & Sherry have been reverted without consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talk • contribs) 12:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

"reverted without consensus" is not a thing. See WP:BRD. Jytdog (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair point. So what's next? Keith Johnston (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

D. Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Cool Keith Johnston (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Jtydog, thanks for your message on my talk page. I am new to Wikipedia so I apologise if I've not followed protocol. I do not believe the external link falls into one of the categories you describe in your message, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. or any in Wikipedia:External_links. I should add I am not affiliated with FUS in any way. I am however, a researcher in the field of HIFU (which I have disclosed).

FUS is one of the largest and best resources used by patients, doctors and researchers in the field of HIFU so I feel it should be included.

For future reference, what was the reason for the removal?

Best Wishes, Elcaleeds (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

am working on a response at the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Grabergs and I have been doing some work, which I'm sure you have noticed, and we would like your input. I want to expand the section on Eve and tell her actual story. I'd also like to be able to include the comments on the impact of that story from the anthropologist and the sociologist. If I promise to find more stuff on art, would you agree not to fight me over moving those two sentences? They are contemporary, you're right, but in reality, everything we write about the past is a contemporary view. There is hardly enough that can be said about how significant Eve has been. Two sentences isn't so much to ask. And we want to do some work on the lead--we would like your opinion. Please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Yoo hoo! I really want to move those two sentences and I don't want an edit war warning in response--so please just agree! It will be fine! It will be good! Trust me! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

It's been a while since we met after the Meg Patterson Afd, and I'm hoping you are still thriving and editing fiercely. I have recently been salvaging Margaret Noble (artist), one of the articles created by COI editor Bernie44, that was deleted when he was blocked in June. Noble says she did not pay for the article, but Bernie44 is a friend--so still COI. I _think_ that I have removed any potentially promotional content, and I thought I was maintaining NPOV, but it was recently drive-by tagged for NPOV (in Draft form!). The tagging editor has not yet responded to my invitation to discuss on the talk page. So I would appreciate your taking a look if you have time. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for that new tool! I've mostly been using the doi citer to fix cites with bad 'et al.' in the author names lately. I believe I preserved the pmids in the edit you linked to me. Do you know of a tool that will find them if you plug in a doi? --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 20:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

so you did! my bad. thanks for being gracious about it. I don't know about all the various templates/tools people use, sorry Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Such as:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paliperidone
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amisulpride
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maprotiline
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirtazapine
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomoxetine
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoxapine

etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meow Freeman (talk • contribs) 00:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss at the Risperdone talk page. That is weird. (note - I bulleted your list) Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

As it goes above. Mostly, that page is for medical students. Your behavior not only caused inconvenience to those students but also led to an editing war. Why you are so stubborn? Dose that page mean sth important to you? So, you've undo it to satisfy yourself. Now we can see your face. You thought you are more qualified than doctors? I hope when you are sick you can undo your body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.192.224.125 (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about Jytdog's credentials, 103.192.224.125 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS), but edits to Wikipedia are based on synthesis of evidence from reliable sources (and in the case of medical articles, reliable medical sources), and as far as we know, you are just a random IP editor, editing from an IP address apparently assigned to TOM Group, a Chinese media company. Please tell us more about your rationale for making these edits. -- The Anome (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog:

My amendments to the André Marin entry were meant to add context and balance. I am NOT paid to write on Wikipedia. The current content is full of half truths. Take for example the two law suits against him. They are put out there to make it sound he did something wrong, when both were dismissed. Proper references to legal sources were provided. If left unchanged, the prior references are misleading and amounts to vandalism. Evidently the writer has an axe to grind.

It was very unfair of you to delete all additions. Please answer asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrdinaryPlanetMan (talk • contribs) 15:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Well, OrdinaryPlanetMan, this edit summary was clearly a lie: the information was not "unsourced". Drmies (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Please see your talk page, OrdinaryPlanetMan. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I created that page because I thought it was a notable distribution. I had no intent of creating the page as an advertisement and specifically avoided the praise sections of the articles / site of the distro and only used those citations for objective things about it such as the trade site being used to credit the creator of the distribution. Also "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic." Isn't that counterproductive when there has only been one addition contribution on the page? Also I wasn't trying to create spam.. I wrote no glowing praise of the distro once and the actual content was more of a rough draft. Also, I thought distrowatch was a usable citation for a third party description for Linux distributions. ShimonChai (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes distrowatch is fine as a source but doesn't contribute to notability; its just a directory. I have nothing to say about what you were trying to do; my comment is about the content. Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello! I was on holidays so I didn’t reply. I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits. Can you please tell me what happened to all the changes i did to the page? As I said originally I was planning on amending all the pages relating to tyrosinemia type 1 and the companies and associations researching it. I am not related to NOTA nor any companies researching ht-1 or drugs. The comparisons made between drugs were factual (comparing FDA approved prescribing information) as this is the information that the patients are looking for. Are you receiving any compensation from a company involved in ht-1 so you are deleting the information?

Thank you

Userpb1978 (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Can you please provide an answer ? Userpb1978 (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hammersoft was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

While there are sources, some of them are self published and most of the rest are passing references or she is not mentioned at all. Per WP:GNG there needs to be significant coverage, not just passing references. Please identify some reliable, secondary sources where she is the subject of the article. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Joy Pullmann and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Joy Pullmann, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hammersoft (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jytdog! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Hammersoft (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, too soon. I will move this to my userspace for now. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Probably a good idea for now. I hope you don't mind the review. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind at all - i wanted independent review. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Your review and opinion here, please. --Zefr (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Lurker9999 (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog, I have a COI "case" for you, if you're interested.

Facing the World is, despite current appearance, IMO a notable topic. There's a cooporative, green but-willing-to-learn COI-editor involved, you can see the discussion at User talk:Emmeliss. So, COI and medical-ish. If it looks fun, please get involved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I fixed it. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Jytdog - I just noticed you did several changes to the Blasting News page I created few months ago. I appreciate it, I think you did an awesome job in better assessing some of the sources I used. However, there are a few parts I believe deserve to be restored - I will add them back with some changes and comments, and as soon as I have more time I will investigate for extra sources. Happy to discuss! Thanks. Mnfndr (talk) 10:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You have no business editing anything on my sandbox. Get out. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to say thank you for your attempts to mediate. I know you were trying to be even handed in your responses. I have added a history of near eastern views now, which I am sure you have seen. Covering 3000 years and multiple cultures in a few paragraphs requires merciless skimming of course, but focusing on the predominant views and not the peripheral ones helps provide adequate foundation for Tykva's claim. Sarah Pomeroy's book is worth a read for anyone interested--which you have seemed to demonstrate in the past. Her book represents quality scholarship. I can't remember right now which of the two dozen books I looked at in the last couple of days had this in it, but I remember reading a comment on the biblical scholarship concerning women in ancient times before feminist scholarship came along, and it made me think of your comments on biblical criticism and the Jews. Hey, did you see I expanded your sentence in the 19th century to a short paragraph? It seemed important. I'm sorry if I seemed difficult and unbending on this issue--but he was just wrong. The Greeks were way more misogynistic than the Hebrews and the Romans followed their example. That is just fact. The Hebrews were kind of in the middle of the pack--the others--not. Saying that does not make it Greek/Roman "bashing", but omitting it does continue this long established bias. Anyway--even if you went away frustrated, I appreciated the fact that you showed up and tried. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

What is hard, is that we have lots of theoreticalish stuff from ancient greece, and very little from the ANE. On top of that, it is hard to go from either, to what people actually did and thought back then. when you read people doing social history of ancient times, there is always a lot of interpolation; lots of "must have been" (like - because Jeremiah rails against people burning their children in fires, people must have been doing that). People take those kinds of moves (which are interesting) and then lay them down, and interpolate between them to try to recreate overall portraits of various aspects of life. One has to take these constructions with multiple layers of educated guesses tentatively....Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

There is lots of interpretation--that doesn't mean that nothing at all is known with any confidence. If it is a construction, then yes, make sure other views of that construction are checked. I do know how to do research. I am actually quite good at it. But there is no doubt ancient Greece and Rome were misogynistic in a way the Hebrews weren't. That isn't a construction. Do the research yourself--and be careful where you look. One book I read referenced a famous male historian who had written a book on the underclasses and the repressed and mistreated of Roman empire and never once mentioned women--didn't even have them as a category. I would think you would have some empathy for that kind of blindness from scholars. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this mistake, apparently I was juggling too many things at once. Your edit summaries though - god damn, lazy, incompetent - come across as angry. The way I see it editing's a hobby, and hobbies should always be enjoyable. If there's something I can do to help with that beyond be more careful, which I will, let me know. D.Creish (talk) 06:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It was just "lazy" fixing the first bareURL with the mistake, and "god damn lazy" fixing the 2nd one. And the break you created, left content unsourced, which as I noted when i fixed that, is incompetent editing. Please don't create work for other people. Jytdog (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed the linebreak. I'm usually good about using preview but this one slipped past. Re: bare URLs, the full cite is a lot of typing for edits that (at least in this article) have a good chance of being removed. My 'calculus' was an article with bareURLs and relevant info is better than one without and fuller cites. D.Creish (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If you are that worried about being reverted it would be better to propose on talk. I wonder - do you know about the cite tool in the editing toolbar? It takes like 5 seconds to format a ref, using it. I only learned about it a year or so ago, and it transformed my editing. Do 1, then 2, then pick something at 3. A window with fields appears. Some of the fields have a little magnifying glass (like URL). If you fill that field and then click the magnifying glass, the rest of the fields auto-fill. Sometimes you have to manually fill a field or two.

-- Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

No I didn't know about that, thanks. Did you make that diagram yourself or is there somewhere with a collection of useful tutorials? D.Creish (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't make it. Somebody introduced into a template I use all the time to help people understand the kind of sourcing that we use for content about health/medicine (template:RSPlease) and I just stole it to post here.

I don't know if any collection of handy tips. We all just flop around and find what we find, I guess. :) Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. MER-C 18:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

great! will do. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking of leaving Reriksenus (talk · contribs) one of those paid editing templates that I have seen you use, but I couldn't find it. Is it just something you made for personal use maybe?

While I'm here, if you want to look over Reriksenus' edits, I'd like to hear your impression. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep, the overall pattern and especially edits like this showing clear coordination, point to the person being a freelancer.

There is a basic set of escalating paid editing templates {{uw-paid1}}, {{uw-paid2}}, {{uw-paid3}}, and {{uw-paid4}}. You have to manually add a header -- I usually use "Mandatory paid editing disclosure" for the first one, and just add the subsequent ones in bullets below that, if they are non-responsive.

Those templates are ...sharp, and focused on paid editing per se. If it turns out someone plausibly denies being a paid editor but appears to have some sort of COI, subsequent discussion can be difficult because the person can get locked into the idea of "paid editing" and will then not be able to hear that we care about broader forms of COI.

I also created a less "sharp", more dialogue-provoking, "template" that I adopt per the situation by copy/pasting it, which is here (that's the first step, explaining the issue asking for disclosure; the second step, explaining what they should do, is just below it). Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

If you have reasonable proof of covert advertising in the crypto area, please forward it to me and I will impose both an indefinite block and a topic ban. MER-C 18:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Not my doing, but figured you should know since the IP didn't bother notifying you. zchrykng (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, saw it. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Jenhawk777, who as you know extensively re-wrote Women in the Bible, Ethics in the Bible, The Bible and violence and Christianity and violence among others, has announced her departure from WP. All these articles are too much like essays imo and she edited from an overt very strong Christian POV. I hope you will continue to work on these articles even though she has gone, I think they are all deeply unsatisfactory. However I cannot try to fix them as such broad topics which invite generalisations where I am not sure they are appropriate ("the Bible" is a collection of writings from hundreds of years apart and with varying perspectives, "Christianity" has been and is many different things), are not for me, I focus on concrete facts of history (or classical music and opera). Anyway, cheers for all your efforts here.Smeat75 (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

That is too harsh but yes there is a bunch of cleanup that still needs doing. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2018 (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.

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyamorph (talk • contribs) 21:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog. An IP editor is at AN complaining about Colorectal cancer. Though he doesn't use your name, he seems to be talking about an interaction he had with you. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks I am aware. Doc James and I have been wrangling with that person at the talk page already. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to wikipedia and am just so grateful that you are standing up for junior editors. I genuinely believe wikipedia is as good as the people who write it, and you are a testament to just how great that can't be. Thank you! Jesswade88 (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

(umm "can't be"? My "fan club" would agree.) But thanks :) I am sorry you were subjected to that crap. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm sure we disagree about a lot of stuff, but anyone who thinks you don't add a huge amount to the project is totally insane. zchrykng (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

That's kind of you! It is good to disagree :) Makes things robusty Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, as we discussed a few weeks ago, an update is still needed on Ciprofloxacin and Quinolone Antibiotic side effects. I appreciate you are very busy. But could you please try and have a look at this. Thank you Wiki woms (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I will see if I can get it done this weekend. Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

I put the below on the talk page of Young Blood Transfusion. Can you help with this? If you like, I can send you the changes. Thanks.

"I have quite a few sourced edits to add to the Young Blood Transfusion page, but I'm not sure how to go about doing it. Is there anyone who can review what I have done and help with this?

Thanks" --Hedgehogsrock (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I have been looking for your response here: User_talk:Hedgehogsrock#Conflict_of_interest_in_Wikipedia. After we work through those issues we can discuss content. Not before. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Did you see my previous post about my connection to Dr Maharaj? --Hedgehogsrock (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I did now, yes. I replied there. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I answered your question on the other talk page. --Hedgehogsrock (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you check the Young Blood talk page for my answer? Thanks. --Hedgehogsrock (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I am disappointed with you because you did not ping me re the new Goodreads discussion. (I'm sure you knew I was a major contributor in the 2016 EL discussion.) To assuage my disappointment please ping the other editors in the EL discussion about the new template issue you've raised. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are disappointed. I notified the author. Please feel free to ping whomever you like. Jytdog (talk) 05:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

for tps, the discussion is Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_25#Goodreads. Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

We know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period in Muse (disambiguation) page while my edits are reasonable (while some editors revert them without any clear reason) and they are not clear vandalism which should be reverted straightly. If you (Jytdog) a good Wikipedian, you'd better consider WP:COMPROMISE and be mediator between the parts who engaged in the conflict to gain consensus (WP:CON) for better result, rather than threaten (WP:HARASS) a part to an edit blocking. — MusenInvincible (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't a threat: it was a notification of the edit warring policy. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi this is to inform you that West African Ebola virus epidemic which you edited will be submitted for WikiJournal of Medicine...The objective of this message is to invite the contributors to collaboratively submit the article for review through Wiki.J.Med, and if possible, to help in further betterment of the article in accordance to the suggestions of the reviewers. Wikipedia articles are collaboratively authored. So, it is very important to make the authors aware of such a process that the article is currently undergoing thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I Have just reverted a largish addition to Peripheral neuropathy. The claims seem over broad, for efficacy as well as applicibility. I checked the editors activity, and all ten of the contributions seem to be focused on the drug Cerebrolysin which is being advertised across the Internet as a mail-order product. I do not have the knowledge to do more than put in a revert and kick it down the road to you. I am fairly certain the refs. will not meet Wikipedia standards for medical subjects. Neonorange (Phil) 00:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Have acted. Jytdog (talk) 05:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you want an other classic WP:Vanity page to tightened it up? --87.170.197.242 (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

nominated for deletion. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 05:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for already helping to guide the students. They have just finished their class. The time frame is: Nov 5th (today) add comments to talk page and sandboxes. Nov 5-13th: Monitor talk pages, respond to feedback, and add changes Nov 10-13th. I have just logged on now to take a peek at some of the suggestions. If you have any suggestions please let me know. I spoke to the Colorectal Cancer group just now to let them know that there was quite a bit of action last week and to make sure changes are communicated on the talk pages. I will be online for the next 2 hours, then again later on tonight. Thanks again! JenOttawa (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the students are not quite finished uploading their suggestions. Some may need another 12-24 hours to finish talk pages/sandboxes. I will be back tonight to do more but will be offline for next 3+hours. Your suggestions are appreciated. Have a great day! JenOttawa (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your input and edits on Schön Properties, but in the summary of your first edit you mentioned that you were trimming spam and removing promo. Just curious what did you consider "spam" and "promo," I thought I was adhering to WP:NPOV. Thanks. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

spam = "references" that are links to the company website, press releases, churnalism , and the like

PROMO = garbage content basically copied from the kinds of sources above, promoting the company. Jytdog (talk) 05:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank your for defining "spam" and "promo," You still didn't answer what in that article was considered "spam" and "promo."So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I raised an issue in April regarding an incorrect edit incorporating multisystem proteinopathy into Hereditary inclusion body myopathy. My previous attempts for attention (two times here and at the IBM talk page) have not worked. This incorrect edit should be reverted. Can we please finish it off? Thanks. 192.55.208.10 (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I've replied there now and have asked for more input at WT:MED. You've been very patient - thanks for that! Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Looking forward to getting this resolved on that talk page. 192.55.208.10 (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

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

I've had to report you to ANI/Incidents until you can explain good reason of your incivility. You can reply on that page with your reasoning. - MusenInvincible (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Why can't we clarify the expression of KLRB1 as my edits were made (expressed in NK cells and T cells) to do and add references for further reading? The last reference is from 2008 and the field is moving on.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchauss (talk • contribs) 15:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

That kind of content would be great! Please see my reply to you at Talk:KLRB1 Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

So we can update the further reading with the expanded KLRB1 primary sources beyond 2008? I will fill in everything if that is the case. Dchauss (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Based on high quality secondary sources, sure! Please don't try to assemble a review here in Wikipedia using primary sources. Please. Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok. However, the sources available in that portion of the article are primary sources. So it seems like some primary sources are ok and others are not? I am sure if we plotted all protein-stubs we would find them filled with peer-reviewed primary sources. Dchauss (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

(which may or may not be ok based on ~the rules~) :) Dchauss (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

There is lots of not-so-good content in Wikipedia and it is somewhat dangerous to use existing content as examples. This being volunteer and wide open, quality is very spotty. :( Ideally everything would be sourced to high quality recent secondary sources that themselves are actually giving the state of play in the field, and primary sources would be used carefully, only when needed, to fill in small details. (things like a birthday, or the exact date something happened; things like that are not common in encyclopedia articles about proteins) Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, for the article about Intermittent Fatsting, I noticed that you removed the section that I added about evolutionary significance for the reason of "horrible sourcing." The Wikipedia guidelines about topics in health and medicine stipulate that journal review articles are the only acceptable sources for information directly related to the effect of the article's topic on humans, but this section was about the evolutionary reasoning behind intermittent fasting. Additionally, the TEDx talk was by Mark Mattson, one of the leading IF researchers whose papers I referenced heavily in my edits. Would you mind explaining to me the issue with this sourcing and the section in general. Thanks. Kseses14 (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy to discuss article content at the article talk page. If you post the note there, I will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. 2604:2000:E0CF:5100:81B8:A314:4A73:70AF (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you please revert this edit by Smellyshirt5, too? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Your edit summary here is a gross misconstrual: I did not "replace" any criticism. It is all still there, including a new critique from someone not previously cited or quoted. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patrick Bet-David is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Bet-David until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Not sure who to ask. I noticed that Template:Reliable medical sources please recommends that the template be substituted. I see that there are a quite a few un-substituted transclusions Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Reliable medical sources please. I know a bot will substitute template:unsigned, can and should it be done for RMSP?

BTW: Is there a non-medical version of this that you know of off-hand? Cheers Jim1138 talk 21:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know anything about fixing un-substituted transclusions.. sorry :(

As far as I know, the standard non-medical ones are {{uw-unsourced1}} and its escalations; {{uw-biog1}} also discusses sourcing a bit. but nothing about better sourcing like RSPlease. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if I can find a bot substituting for unsigned. I might just try one. Then ask about how it works. Cheers Jim1138 talk 08:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I must be going blind, it's already setup to auto-substitute. It's User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster that does it. Must have miss-clicked. Cheers Jim1138 talk 09:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I added the disclosure you requested on my userpage, and commented below on my talk page. Please help me with the next steps :) Neurogal913 (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello - I think this article is ready to head back to the main space, but I did want to verify that all of your concerns had been addressed. Canada Hky (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Acyl-CoA oxidase deficiency - thanks for your work on that! Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

A "Request Edit" reviewer addressing Talk:Letgo#Proposed_edits closed out the request since it's been more than 21 days since you commented on changes you requested. He asked that I ask you on your Talk page if you want to be involved any further before I proceed with finding a new reviewer. He asked that any substantive discussion take place on the Letgo talk. Thanks for considering the matter. BC1278 (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)BC1278