User talk:Jytdog/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Your constant uncivil comments

Please stop making your constant uncivil comments about me on TITUSIIX's talk page and elsewhere. You are also being unbelievably naive if you believe the bullshit that he is telling you. Anglicanus (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me make this quite clear to you. You are naively enabling this editor in his dishonesty. If you actually knew anything about the organisations that he is editing on you would not be so forthcoming with your encouragement of him and your criticism of me. Anglicanus (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

please tell me about them.Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You can start by having a read of this information. Anglicanus (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This apparently factual information may also help clarify some of my previous comments and concerns. Anglicanus (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Bayer's two most famous trademarks

Hi. You just removed my edit of Bayer AG's page regarding their well known brand heroin, and I just wanted to know why? Thanks Zinedine Socrates (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

it was unsourced - if you have a reliable source for that, please feel free to add it back. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, it's sourced now. Zinedine Socrates (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

BJU spring break

I think you're too skeptical. IMHO, if ABC News covers it, I think the BJU spring break is more than an internal matter. Not that it struck me as something critical that needed adding, but the new spring break did get more national coverage than the GRACE report—something we can perhaps blame on declining journalistic standards.--John Foxe (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

really. you think this is encyclopedia-worthy? it is so, so trivial to me. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Fine. No problem. I do think you if you understood more about the institution, you'd weigh the information more heavily. Julius Caesar's perspective in writing the Gallic Wars was completely COI, but the book is one of the most accurate (not to mention, most understandable) pieces of Latin prose ever written. There's something to be said for perception that arises from inside knowledge.--John Foxe (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Lorna Taylor

Hi Jytdog! Just a quick note - if you think the COI tag should be removed all is good, but as a heads up, John Keith 00 was hired to remove to tag, so the editor may not be the best choice to clean it up. - Bilby (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

oh crap i mistake that editor for someone else. thank you! Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. The job caught my eye because it mentioned you specifically, so it was a tad more unusual than most. We've have a few job ads of late asking to remove COI tags - I find the irony interesting. - Bilby (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

oh double gaming. funny. thanks for the heads up. will keep my eye out for that. Jytdog (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

COMON!

HE CALLED ME A DAMN TROLL MAN NOW THATS OFFENSIVE!!!!!! Coolidon (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

comments like this are never good. they are extra self-destructive and foolish when your behavior is being discussed at ANI. Now is the time to reel things in, be reflective, and hear the community's concerns. If you want to keep your editing privileges, anyway. if you want to drive off a cliff and get banned, you are free to do that of course. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Emotional Freedom Techniques

I have no stake in the article at all, it came up on the Special:PendingChanges list and that's why I made any edits at all. It looks like one or more Editors want to discredit the subject and personally I could care less. But if you feel its a garbage article, then just nominate it for deletion rather than continue with the passive-aggressive POV editing.[1][2]

I'm no fan of pseudo science or medicine either, but I don't tip toe around the subject if its not worth keeping on WP. If the sources are WP:RS, then the article just needs to be factual and NEUTRAL. Let the Reader decide what's bunk or not. If not, do the right thing. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

what concerns me right now is that you seem to be saying that the dif i reverted was a good edit. are you? Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not my edit, which one are you referring to? I made a layout and section title change. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

above you provided a dif of an edit I made. what i did there, was revert an edit - that edit, is in the diff i provided. are you saying that the edit i reverted was a good edit? Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering that anyone making an edit to that section would need a copy of the book cited, I don't know. Have you read it? Cause that's the only way you'd be able to legitimately make that claim, assuming the source backs up your edit. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

WTF?! Jytdog is obviously reverting gibberish/disruptive edits here. What on earth is in question here? Alexbrn (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

So you have a copy of the book and can verify what it says or does not say? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What book and what material is being discussed here? Scalhotrod, what exactly are you accusing Jytdog of? What is wrong with the edits you linked to earlier, and why do you persist in hounding Jytdog about it? I agree with Alexbrn, I see no indication Jytdog did anything wrong in the diffs above, and would like you to clarify, specifically, what the issue is. Yobol (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't get this either. What edit is making reference to a "book"? This edit was the only edit ever made by a throw-away account, it broke the formatting and grammar and reversed the meaning of the content that was there before. It's sourced to the journal Skeptical Inquirer, if you want to get a feel for how they treat EFT, read this. Then revisit whether the revert of that edit was appropriate. Zad68 19:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The book in question is one of the sources cited.

References

Sections of this article sourced to this book are being changed. This material being cited does not appear to be online, so if no one editing the article has a copy of the book, why are they making changes to the content? If no one can verify the source, then yank the content, its really that simple. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

OK so you're talking about this edit, it's not sourced to a book but rather a journal, you can read the abstract of the article right here, please do review the abstract and the edit, and then determine whether the edit was an improvement that represented the source accurately. Zad68 19:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, my bad, it's a medical journal not a book. But yes, thats the crux of it. If all that is being cited is the abstract, then it should represent that as well as saying something like "Clinical Psychologist Gary M. Bakker stated in a 2013 article published by the Australian Psychological Society that..." Specificity gives the content and claims credibility along with just being better encyclopedic writing IMO. This EFT thing looks like BS to me, so if there are sources that state this, we should be giving them credit (or discredit, pun intended) they deserve. Make sense? By the way, this also solves the potential issue of using Wikipedia's voice to state something when its sourced to one person, as credible as they may be. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

So you were complaining about Jytdog's edits without even knowing what the source was (not to mention the content of the source)? Yeah, perhaps you need to read WP:AGF, and do a little more research before complaining about someone else's edits? Yobol (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yobol, I didn't come to this Talk page looking for an argument and I wish I could say the same about you. The article has problems, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. So waive the WP:AGF flag around all you want, but I was uninvolved until I responded to a Pending Changes review and then decided to try and make some basic edits. You are all far more involved in the article and knowledgeable on the content than I ever will (or want to) be. I wasn't trying to be disruptive, but I was trying to calmly discuss the situation and understand the situation better. I'm taking this whole issue and associated pages off my Watch list. Please try to have a nice day, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, whether or not you came here "looking for an argument", you certainly came out swinging at Jytdog's editing, calling it "passive-aggressive POV editing", when, in fact, it was the correct action to take when deliberately incorrect information (as cited) was inserted into the article. Please take this opportunity to reflect and hopefully avoid such mistakes in the future. Happy editing. Yobol (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

    I extend the olive branch.
    ~~~~

Hey Jyt, I'm sorry that things went offtrack. I wasn't trying to be disruptive, nor was I making accusations about your edits. All in all, I was just trying to improve an article that I came across via the Pending Changes review. Yobol says that I owe you an apology and I'm happy to do that. As I said to Yobol on their Talk page, everyone is entitled to their opinion and I'll defend their right to it, plus I can respect one Editor defending another when there is the perception of wrongdoing. And to that end Zad68 seemed to be moving the discussion along productively and Yobol less so. BUT... It all happened because of the discussion that I started. So again, I apologize. I was trying to "be bold" and encourage positive and proactive editing, but it did not come across that way. Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much! water under the bridge. Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

James Nairn

Hello, Jytdog -- I was just glancing at the article on James Nairn and was surprised to see how young he was when he died. I read the cause in the very last sentence of the article. I just wondered if "perforating" is right there, or whether it should be "perforated". CorinneSD (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

yep that is some 19th century medical lingo. I fixed it. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

doors

please do not ban doors, he is very important. He did a lot good work to increase awareness about this hellish baldness drug and didn't take any money for that. Please be empathic for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.172.247.219 (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks for your note. three things. first, thanks for talking. second, it will not be my decision; it will be the community's decision. third, using Wikipedia to raise awareness of anything is against our policies. Doors continues to ignore that, despite being informed about that policy many times. That is his decision. But thanks again for talking. I am sorry that he and others are suffering but that is another matter from what goes on here. Jytdog (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Azodicarbonamide controversy

Hello. I noticed you reverted my edit to the azodicarbonamide page. As you stated, I started a discussion on the talk page of the article. Would you like to comment there in more detail? Merci beaucoup! NHCLS (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

great, i will respond there! thx

DDR case

@Jytdog

Why did you delete the entire section on how the invention works? I saw no explanation. I hesitate to use the word "vandalization," but I cannot understand what you are up to. Please advise PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I did leave an edit note. Not vandalism. I will start a discussion on the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Primary Sources

@Jytdog Primary sources are more authentic, secondary sources are liable to spindoctors. Is banning primary sources wikipedia policy and why? 70.109.42.135 (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

happy to discuss on the article talk page - will you please open a thread there? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center....

appears to have one of the most well-organized and pervasive COI editing programs on Wikipedia.

Currently active editor Enapolitano has edited the MSKCC-related article Joan Massagué Solé (33% of text) exclusively.

44% of the MSKCC article total text added is from user: Davidthelion2. This editor's contributions consist almost entirely of edits the the following articles. David was last active in 2013

- Simon N. Powell - Chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Davidthelion2 is responsible for 77% of the text of this article.

- Thomas J. Kelly (scientist) - director of the Sloan-Kettering Institute, the basic research arm of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Davidthelion2 produced 57% of the text of this article

- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center - 44% of the total text is from Davidthelion2

- Peter T. Scardino Chair of the Dept of Surgery at MSKCC. 12% of text from David

user: Joanvalo, whose user page describes herself as a "freelance writer", was last active in 2012. She has also edited solely MSKCC related articles, including

- Peter T. Scardino (Chair of surgery at MSKCC), 78% of the text

- George Bosl - Chair in Clinical Oncology at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 6.5%

User: Anneclear - has solely edited MSKCC articles, last active in 2012

User: MedEditorNYC, no longer active, has only edited the John H. Healey article (head of special surgery at MSKCC) (95% of the articel

[[User: Clearanne has solely edited MSKCC articles, last active in 2013

User: Lyjmsk12 has solely edited MSKCC articles, being responsible for 72% of the text in the Hedvig Hricak article

User: Kzezulinski has solely edited MSKCC articles, last active in 2011

User: Lubieh, last active in 2013, has solely edited MSKCC articles

User: Reportwritermother, last active in 2009, never edited any non-MSKCC related article

What a mess. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 20:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh crap. so much time cleaning up these messes! thanks for posting here. I'll post this at COIN. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

CRISPR revision undo

I've been notified that my [revision] in CRISPR article has been undone. Explanation states: WP:CRYSTALBALL content. My contribution was not a speculation. Primates were geneticaly modified with this new technique(groundbreaking achievement). Linked article goes on to speculate about the furture, but the fact remains the same. Slaven0 (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! Would you please post your comment on the Talk page of the CRISPR article so that you and I and others can discuss? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Slaven0 (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yohimbine

Hello Jytdog, One of my students made extensive revisions to the yohimbine page yesterday as part of a class assignment (I teach an advanced undergraduate chemistry course). I see you made extensive revisions, for a number of reasons, and many look to be justified. Still, I wanted to make a couple comments about the revisions. In our class, we studied molecules with either confirmed toxicity or potential toxicity. All of these molecules were bioactive in some way, and many were discovered long ago and used in traditional medicine or ritual, before their chemical structures or behaviors were scientifically characterized. Therefore, in editing articles, we thought history and chemistry were important sections to expand. Is there a reason they do not belong in this article? Most other articles about complex molecules do have this information, since they are very important to the fields of chemistry and the history of the molecule (how was it discovered? what organism does it come from? why did chemists become interested in it?). This page is (or should be) about yohimbine the molecule, not yohimbine the herbal supplement (who knows what mix of substances is in that), and so, I think the content of the article should focus on the molecule, not the herb. Would love to discuss further. Ajfrontier (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks for your note! i'd be happy to discuss - we should do it at the article talk page - if you want to just copy your note above and put it there, i will respond there. (better for many reasons) thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Shiatsu

You appear to have sent me a notice about edit warring because I undid an article that you undid while I was in the process of editing. Then another contributor undid while I was editing. I have now contributed to Talk. How is it possible to update an article if articles cannot be updated as they are being undone during the process of editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eikoku (talk • contribs) 18:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

if you plan on making extensive edits, there are two things. First, is you should know that many Wikipedia articles have many people who watch them, so if you make extensive changes - and especially really changing the direction of the article, you should not be surprised to get immediate feedback and reversions. (which is all fine and part of life here - your being bold, and others reverting you). second, if you want space and time to make a bunch of edits, you can put an "under construction" tag on the article while you work. (see Template:Under construction). Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Quick

I made a quick table at Wikipedia:Biomedical information#The best type of source. I'm not entirely satisfied with it, and I wondered if you'd take a look at it and add or change whatever you'd recommend. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

that is so helpful! Thanks for doing that. Will add some stuff. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I was reverting b&^%$#*&^/

edit conflict, yes I know im late--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

self-notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Weak citation?

I did a quick check on the citation you provided for the Agent Orange claim on the Monsanto page and the page provided in the citation doesn't seem to even mention Monsanto at all. Link here for reference. Would it be best to revise/remove the citation in this case or is there something I'm missing? Thanks. YesPretense (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

i'll fix it in a minute. Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Glyphosate

The 3RR complaint has been closed per WP:AN3#User:SageRad and User:Jytdog reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Protected) with 3 days of article protection. If the war continues after that, blocks are likely. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks, makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

From one hound to another

This is pushing the limit of acceptable length for quotations pretty hard. Suggest you reconsider. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

yeah that was pretty long, wasn't it. done. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you :-) LeadSongDog come howl! 20:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

you are welcome - thanks for calling my attention to it. Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

A request

Please don't follow me to articles. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin that is a very reasonable request and believe me I do not enjoy interacting with you nor do I seek it out. It was actually not a "follow" - I was looking a COI issue and came across the article you have been creating. I do think it is a great subject for an article. I didn't intend to do anything but that truncated quote was just a bad thing. I know you don't like pharma but please don't let that influence how you write about medicine. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You don't know what I like and don't like. I follow the sources and there's a mountain still to read, so the artice is in flux. It makes no sense to argue at this point about specific wording, and the discussion has cost me research time. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Expert editors.

Thank you for these valuable and balanced contributions! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

you are welcome! lately it seems i have been welcoming new scientists a lot, and i am so glad that essay exists. Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Old Catholic Confederation

Given an unopposed PROD and an unopposed AFD, a PROD is likely to be successful. But playing fast and loose with CSDs bites a lot of newbies, so it's better to avoid it - if they're writing it to promote themselves, maybe I don't care, but if the're writing it because they're church history/church organisation nerds, then maybe I do. The squinting and guessing people's motives game of G11s is killing us with it's false positives on new editors, even if the rate is perhaps low, because genuine new editors ain't so common as vanity-ers and spammers. I'm perhaps more of a stickler for the policy and less of a cowboy than some other admins in this, I know. WilyD 11:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

understood and i appreciate your caution. I had just wanted to let you know that the G11 wasn't totally kooky. i already prodded it. thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:COIN

Thanks for responding to my request at WP:COIN. I'm going to be deliberately vague here to avoid outing the editor. Based on the edits of the editor he appears to be the son of the subject. Wording at the now deleted files, such as identifying the image as being sourced from his mother's house, make the identity fairly clear. There was something that identified him as the son rather than the daughter, but it was a year ago and I can't remember exactly what it was. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

the case there was very clear. we'll take care of it together, one way or another. hopefully in a way without drama. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:COI editnotice

I changed it to "conflict of interest". Despite the drawbacks of the term, I think this is the best way to address both concerns. On one hand it applies to a broader range of editors we would prefer not to edit, while also not applying to such a broad range as "close connection" which may encompass all kinds of scenarios where there is not actually a COI. I thought the discussion was progressing and worthwhile. Should make the template useful for cases like the farm article.

Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 20:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

as you will. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

usc eye institute

this article is very hard to write without hiding info. Maybe just redirect it?

if you whitewash the situation, that is dishonest. if you tell the truth, it is an ugly picture of suing, deceit, money, etc. Neutralandnotinvolved (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

i'll respond at the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Request

Jytdog,

I have asked you at least three times to stay off my talk page. You are free to respond to me, and let me know how sad and unwise you find me at articles talk pages and elsewhere, but not my own. Understood? I think it's time for me to be honest: I care so little for your opinion that I usually don't read a thing you write. So it's nothing but a waste of your time to express yourself to me, and it could be considered harassment at this point to continue violating my request to leave my talk page alone. petrarchan47คุก 21:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

my apologies. i forgot you asked me that. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Sesame Oil usage in Japan

You had reverted an edit on Sesame Oil used in Japanese Rayu, without any explanation, which I find extremely puzzling. Would appreciate if you can answer why you considered - that the removed content - was not appropriate Encyclopaedia material? J mareeswaran (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

i did leave an edit note; it looked like spamming to me. Can you find better sources? sorry if that was a good faith edit.... Jytdog (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It was a good faith Edit. And they were the best English references I could find so far. If you have objections to the references, then you can remove/cite references alone, as I feel the content is not Spam and genuinely useful information. J mareeswaran (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

COI ?

[3] and [4] ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like COI is possible- I just rejected that article by the way as advert/not notable, as suggested by some users on Wikiproject:Medicine, and my own opinion of the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

rfconcoi

May I ask that in this discussion, taking place elsewhere, would you think twice when you feel tempted to guide the discussion -interjecting and commenting as I have seen you do in the past. It attracted some comment last time, which was perhaps harsh, but nevertheless. (please note that I'm not saying don't, but do think twice before.) -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 17:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

added note: if you are an alt med practitioner, please disclose that in your !vote. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I would change it to "added note: if you are an alt med practitioner, please disclose that in your !vote in bold." QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Added Note : I am not an ALT_MEDDIST of any kind. Thanks. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 18:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

bump. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 19:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

did i make you unhappy by asking core how he would modify the RfC roxy? i appreciate you looking out for me btw. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello

You in no way owe me an explanation. Thanks for offering one none the less. I apologize if the final part of my message was abit harsh. It's not personal. And that wasn't completely directed in your direction. The point being the individuals would not be in the wrong simply or solely because they are an alt-med practitioner and they are editing an article related to their field. Then again based on their actions it can rise to the level of a COI. I like to think of it along the lines of obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio, to use the words of Justice Stewart, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it." This is all my point.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

i hear you and thanks for writing. :) just wanted to provide you with the context for the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spearmind (talk • contribs) 19:27, 9 March 2015‎

Ongoing conflict in Talk:Foie gras

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

You have been notified

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Atsme^☎️📧 19:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick message

Just popping by to say that I saw your last reply after RexxS comment, and I think we have a clear enough understanding of where each other is coming from to drop the topic, declare a truce and move on. I blanked the discussion at my talk because it seemed to be drawing in yet more people and I suspect further discussion isn't going to be terribly helpful at the moment. I said my piece at the RfC and am content to await further developments. Cheers and all that. Montanabw^(talk) 00:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks very much for reaching out! so kind of you. Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I just want to say thank you again for your time and patience. I apologize for my ignorance about the rules and protocols at Wikipedia. I really don't use Wikipedia and am not acquainted in its dynamics. My frustration with my bio has been considerable and that along with ignorance is the explanation for my behavior, which offended you. I have apparently been authenticated and am now taking your advice to proceed very slowly with edits one word or fact at a time. There are many errors in my bio, but taking them one at time slowly is apparently the way Wikipeida works. Thank you for pointing all of this out, even if it did take awhile for it sink in. All the best. Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Publication bias

Greetings! Do you have an access to this article[5]? If so, could you please send me that one? I'd like to see if and how they might have possibly studied the subject. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

check your email Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Using preview

Jytdog, I'd like to ask you to stop changing your posts and timestamps. The former means people are replying to words that no longer exist, and the latter makes diffs harder to find after the fact. It also means there are lots of edit conflicts. If you could use preview more, it would be very helpful. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

per WP:REDACT, an editor can edit a comment if it has not been responded to. after it has been responded to, yes, redaction via markup is required. no one had responded to my post yet. Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I was in the process of responding to it. Everyone makes mistakes, but changing posts as a matter of routine can cause problems. If respondents notice that you've changed your post in significant ways, before they've saved their reply, they then have to change theirs. If they don't notice, it means they've responded to something that's no longer there, and have to leave a second post explaining, as I just had to do. I've noticed that people have mentioned this to you a few times, so it would be extremely helpful if you could use preview more. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Botanical drug

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

COIN or SPI noticeboard?

I'd appreciate your advice on what to do with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BiH which seems to be going nowhere. Perhaps it is better raised at the COIN? Or maybe I should just wait for the SPI to happen? — Brianhe (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Long spine board

Come chat with me in the talk section. --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

done! :) Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Eric Braverman

I removed what I saw to be some pov and promotional wording from Eric R. Braverman and cleaned the article up a bit with wording, links, format, etc. What else needs to be addressed to remove the tag? Also, that entire "Caveats" section is unreferenced. Are there sources for that? Thanks. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

funny that you reached out to me - I was about to reach out to you.. see your talk page in a minute. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thrombocytopenia

Jytdog could I get your opinion on this articles talk page in regards to the "treatment table".thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

what about it in particular? Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking about getting rid of it, in place of a paragraph or two--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

i don't think it's a bad thing, format-wise. it could be made into prose, and that would be more standard for sure. but more importantly. it is not sourced very well, and i'm worried that was in the table in that article, doesn't match up with the "main" articles for each disease. (the content in the table should just be a WP:SUMMARY of what is in the sub-articles that are linked-to in the table) -- often people just update the main article, and not the sub-articles. if i were working on that article, i would first check to make sure what ever is in the table is in the sub-articles, and if not, i would first get them updated. then i would make a summary of the subarticles (with refs) and update the main article. and yeah, i would probably go from table to prose format. i wouldn't fight about the format if other people really love the table. the main thing is the content. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

that's what I was thinking, it has no refs, and therefore should be started over...thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

See...

...your user page.--TMCk (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Totally missed that. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I must be missing some background, because that comment read like time cube to me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

yes very hard to figure out what was going with this editor - Special:Contributions/JARacino. either trolling (unlikely to me) or very sad. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Your deletion in Diabetes - possible cures or reversal

On my talk page you posted the Edit Wars template and the Real Science (RSPlease) template :

References

Just follow the steps 1, 2 and 3 as shown and fill in the details

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

1. While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
2. Then click on "templates",
3. Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details beside a magnifying glass followed by clicking said button,
4. If the article is available in Pubmed Central, you have to add the pmc parameter manually -- click on "show additional fields" in the template and you will see the "pmc" field. Please add just the number and don't include "PMC".

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note.

and signed both Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Well yes, I feel free to drop you a note saying first and foremost that 'We' includes myself. Besides the fact that we at Wikipedia work together in good faith, and respect those who spend their time and efforts in order to bring quality content to our website, yours and mine.

You could at the least have had read my note on the article's talk page. Actually You SHOULD have been the one writing there first. I've been here on wp as you can see if you care to look at my modest contributions, for quite a time, received some stars and a few thanks here and there. I explained what may have happened on the article's talk page (I'm still not sure where exactly and in which part your criticism lies). I expect you to discuss it with me over there, and to give a bit more respect and credit to contributors. I realize that you follow a lot of corrupt or bad material, as I saw on your contribution page which is mostly negative, but still that should not be your immediate response to any editor who's edits you find problems with.

You simply erased my whole paragraph. You finally wrote on my talk page (nothing on the article's talk page, only templates with no specific information on mine) AFTER I wrote on the article's talk page explaining my good faith. So where is yours? Please refrain from being uncooperative with an active Wikipedia author who spends much of his time and works hard to bring scientific research based non-controversial well-sourced material to the Wikipedia, and instead, before erasing an entire section discuss the problems on the article's talk page. If you DO for some reason believe an extensive edit has problems that merit your deletion of it, at least notify the writer on his/her talk page... and BEFORE you do so, that would show them some degree of caring.

In any case I wish to emphasize a line in the Edit Wars template:
Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.

So, since you are the first one to undo my work almost in whole and leaving only a very small "in part", you should notice that you too are warned not to remove my edit, and if you have, to put it back (with changes or warnings) until we have the discussion on the talk page.

Now, to completely change the tone, I truly wish to read your criticism, which I expect is probably mostly about the bypass surgery, and which, as you can see from many of my contributions in the past, I will be more than happy to accept in the combat against pseudo-science, and countering quackery, fads and scams, and to promote good science and scientifically acceptable medical practices. Yours faithfully, Moshe aka פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

yep, i missed your note on the Talk page. replying there

Methylhexanamine

Hello. Why have you removed a mention of another compounds?87.252.225.23 (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

per my edit note you appear to be a sock of the blocker user Nuklear, and I reverted per WP:REVERTBAN. Your edits fall exactly into the pattern of his. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

My adding of mention of Tuaminohexane is my first edit of this article. I don't know who is Nuklear and what does his sock mean.87.252.225.23 (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Silver

You removed mention of the fact that people invest in silver on the grounds that it was unreferenced, per the requirement for verifiability. People have chosen silver as a means to store their wealth for thousands of years. Did you look for reliable sources and fail to find any? If not a "citation needed" template would have been more appropriate that the removal of content. Edison (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Edison (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It took maybe 10 seconds to find via the Wall Street Journal article about investing in silver: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/want-to-invest-in-silver-read-this-first-2014-11-12

great! Jytdog (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I said "store their wealth" but that is not a very good definition of "investing," where people generally hope to make a gain(if not a killing) rather than just preserving the value. It's like Will Rogers reportedly said after the 1929 stock market crash: "I used to worry about the return on my investment. Now I would just appreciate the return OF my investment!" Silver would allow the return OF investment, less storage costs and dealer markup getting in and out of the position. Regards. Edison (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

so WP:FIXIT. Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

HFCS

Hi Jytdog. If you have time, it would be great if you could provide some input at High fructose corn syrup. Thanks. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

COI query

Do e-cig users have a potential COI? I assume an e-cig user is someone who personally uses e-cigs. I don't understand all the details about WP:COI. Maybe you can clarify this. QuackGuru (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No (imo). That's way too broad an interpretation of COI. Might as well ask if people who don't use (or dislike) them have a COI. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 23:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've actually been thinking of that one for awhile too. I think there's strong potential for a user of a product to react in an advocate manner if they feel strongly about it, but that only just grazes the level of potential COI rather than actual demonstratable COI (which we'd normally bring up at COIN). In this case, better to just watch for advocacy-like behavior and bring it up at ANI if there is a strong and disruptive pattern of it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Advocacy caveat applies to all parties, e-cig users or not (opponents can get pretty tendentious too). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 00:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

No. A person who takes celecoxib doesn't have a COI for that article, per se. Nor does a doctor who prescribes it, per se. Somebody who works for Pfizer would. A doctor who is a paid consultant for Pfizer would. A doctor or patient who loves, loves, loves the drug might have advocacy issues, however. Anybody who headed an advocacy organization about celecoxib would have a COI and be an advocate. Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

COIN inquiry re Template:Connected Contributor for CAm professionals at CAM articles

Hi Jytdog, I'm going to take this live, but first would be grateful for any feedback you may have (wording etc.). cheers Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 23:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a really, really, really, really, really bad idea. It opens the door to requiring similar templates when doctors edit medical articles, physicists edit physics articles, and so on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Short Brigade Harvester Boris - Agree; also agreed with your (related) comments at the recent RfC. The arguments for CAM-ers having COI are valid (as also are arguments against it), but implementing it is where it really gets problematic. That said, probably best that I refrain from commenting at COI/N since I'm initiating it. I do want to post it though in order to settle the issue; at Talk:Acu, I feel the template has somewhat been used in a rather POINT-y, poking manner. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 01:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

i replied there. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

conflict of interest

sorry if I came across as rude or unhelpful, not my typical style, but I guess everyone says that.18abruce (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

i didn't take any offense. :) Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

COI or not at Ben Lang (entrepreneur)

Do you think this article and talkpage need the COI/Connected contributor tags? I'm not sure how strog the evidence of COI editing has to be. — Brianhe (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

i would start by approaching the creating editor who does appear to have a COI, and leave off tagging for a bit, to see if diplomacy can bring them out. Let me know if you would like me to do that. I really appreciate all the COIN-related work you do! Jytdog (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please do contact him. I'll lay off for a bit. And thanks for the encouragement. Brianhe (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

HFCS

Re: this, do you think it's best to visit WP:SPI at this point? If we're really dealing with socks (still trying to digest all this) we're looking at 13 reverts at least by one person in less than a day. Even though the page is protected I get the feeling there are larger behavior issues that need to be addressed (something like seven reverts without socks), so maybe AN3 needs to be visited if SPI doesn't really fit with this case? I'm open to opening a case at either if it seems like the last option, but I just wanted to see if you had any other thoughts. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note but the most grievous thing in my eyes is the socking. That is really upsetting as I really thought there were at least two editors opposing, but it was just the one. That is the heart of a SOCK violation. The page is protected so edit warring is moot for the edit warring board. They only care about active edit wars there. Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Strong-arm_tactics_by_Jytdog ip editor opened it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI South Beach Diet

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Anmccaff (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

this seems to be my day for flakey admin board filings. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

comment

I just want to say thank you again for your time and patience. I apologize for my ignorance about the rules and protocols at Wikipedia. I really don't use Wikipedia and am not acquainted in its dynamics. My frustration with my bio been considerable and that is the only excuse for my behavior. I have apparently been authenticated and am now taking your advice to proceed very slowly for edits one word or fact one by one. There are many errors in my bio, but taking them one at time slowly is apparently the way Wikipeida works. Thank you for pointing all of this out, even if it did take awhile for it sink in. All the best. Rick Alan RossRick A. Ross (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! I do understand your frustration. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thank you for defending me at WP:ANI against User:WordSeventeen. Thank you for finding evidence of their previous misdemeanours, which seemed to be a key factor in exposing their harassment. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Blackbeard

It's not altogether obvious why the declaration of COI in a company called Nautilus leads to a tag on Blackbeard. Could you expand the tag a little? --Dweller (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hm. OK. Jytdog (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

IP hopper?

A dynamic IP is not an "IP hopper". Dynamic IPs occur because of how the user's ISP operates and are beyond the control of the user. Intentionally changing IP addresses is another matter entirely. 32.218.35.36 (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

GMO RfC

I have a question I posted in the "Discussion" section. Hope you are able to answer it. TFD (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I asked another editor, Andy the Grump, to look at the page. I have come across him in a number of articles that discuss academic consensus and thought his contribution could be helpful. TFD (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks! i like the way AtG thinks. the more the merrier. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Judith Butler

I'm not sure why you made this edit, removing most of Butler's honorary degrees and awards. It's not typical for academic to require every award given or appointment to be sourced, especially as she is such a well-known and prominent scholar. Do you have some reason to doubt that this information is accurate? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

the addition of the Costa Rica degree prompted me to look at the sourcing. Good stuff and bad stuff needs to be sourced in a BLP article. Feel free to restore it if you like but please VERIFY it. Thanks for asking! Jytdog (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you a deletionist?

So, I see you just reverted my addition to Opioid. When I look through you contributions, I see one deletion after another, some of them much more effort than my trivial addition. You know, you could just add "Needs citation" if the addition really bothers you so much. Going around deleting other people's work is so destructive to the Wikipedia project. I know you've probably heard it all before, but Deletionists are the reason I don't bother editing here much. --Brian Fenton (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Content added without sourcing is not information - please feel free to add it back with good sourcing! Please! Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added the comment again, this time with sourcing. But seriously, you're acting like you own the shop. Stop deleting other people's work! --Brian Fenton (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding sourcing. That's great. Jytdog (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS discussion

Hi Jytdog, I hope you don't mind that I've moved the list of former discussions to its own section. It was making it harder to find where to post. I think it's important that we develop something for the guideline this time and not let it slide, so I'd like to keep the discussion focused on how to find a solution. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at WP:AN/I regarding your refusal to provide a good-faith explanation for why you reverted my change. The thread is Jytdog repeatedly disregarding requests for explanations concerning an edit. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrayDuck156 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC) GrayDuck156 (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

COI tag on Talk:Underwater diving

Hi Jytdog, You have tagged talk:Underwater diving with a COI for user:Caprockranger, who has made no edits to that article which suggest a COI to me. Could you explain the motivation for this tag? Maybe I have missed something. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Pbsouthwood per his userpage, he runs an underwater videography company and added references to himself and his company in content/refs/links of lots of articles. i blasted through and added connected contributor tags to all of them - you are right that he did nothing COI-y on that article in particular. thanks for asking! Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, that is what it looked like. I have reverted as not relevant in that case. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

edited back

Hi Jytdog, On the GMF page I was in the throws of writing:

Jytdog in a recent edit elsewhere you made an unexpected comment regarding your "usual haters".

You write things like, "do not misrespresent what other people write".

I said "Please correct me if I am wrong in counting" and openly pinged all editors for comment:

I would really like to it will help you if you spend some time to think around this issue.

I edited back on the first and last lines but suspect that this is something that you may seriously need to hear. I don't know you that well but the bits I have seen have for me raised questions. I know that there may be things on your mind at present but think that it may be to your advantage to take some time to think things through here. I don't mind if you delete any of this. It is just good faith concern. GregKaye 19:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

on the one hand, i appreciate you writing to me directly. on the other hand....

i've written you about three draft replies now. here is the one i am going with:

i walked away from my interaction with you on the Bfpage thing, where not a single other editor agreed with you, with concerns about you. Did i start to follow you around? No. I thought "whew, glad I don't interact with that guy much" and left that alone.

So what did you do? You chose to jump into the ANI on me, and followed that to the subject article talk page here for example and now you have come here, to my talk page.

So I would like you to rethink what you are doing. Would you have liked it, if I allowed my concern about you to drive me to start following you around? I doubt it. So please stop following me around. How did you say it? "it may be to your advantage to take some time to think things through here." Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

and it is "throes", btw. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Honestly m8 I am trying to mention things to you for, IMO, the good of you as an editor and the good of the site. It is clear to me that you are a smart guy with the potential to do a lot of good and I have no objection to your basic editing stance. I also appreciate that I have had my own tussles on wiki on issues that I feel strongly about.

Please consider not presenting, i think, selective interpretations etc.

Yes, after I pinged you back into the Bfpage, I disagreed with the view that (with no warning having been given about anything other than hounding) the advocacy of a six month ban on the basis of a few edits of categories or whatever was way extreme. I also appreciate your early explanations to this editor. I think that it would have been helpful to this user to have confronted in regard to specific behaviours for change and so as to ensure the development of understandings rather than merely slapping on an extensive ban in the context of consistently denying an editors right to reply and walking away. However I recognise that this is a general issue with Wikipedia, at least as I see it, so I don't in any way intend to point everything at you.

Yes I made a strong initial statement at the ANI. The ani regarded ".. repeatedly disregarding requests for explanations .." which, as far as I saw it, had been precisely my experience. Please do not take up interpretations that I "follow you around". Please consider, even with this, how instantly argumentative this is.

In the thread related to your ANI case you are fighting for the keeping a citation that contains text that actually opposes the content presented in the Wikipedia text. Please for the good of Wikipedia time and for your own arguments consider whether, I believe, ludicrous arguments like this are worth fighting. Wikipedia needs editors like yourself to please be wp:here for the sole purpose for the development of encyclopedic content working, in all ways practicable, in collaborative cooperation with other editors. In the thread I know another editor asked about the location of a RfC and, maybe it was me, but even in this I couldn't see reply. Making a claim for support of an argument and then not providing reference to your source is not fair. This is a small point to the others mentioned as related to the inclusion of the who citation at that point in the text.

Ironically my reaction to your "usual haters" my have jumped hack at me. Stands that I have taken of the talk pages on the Israel and Antisemitism articles have led to a period of vandalism on my talk page which, with exquisite timing, has only just come to light, and I thought that it might be involvements with ISIL that might lead to trouble.

I am still not convinced that Bfpage was tackled on the motivation related to Wikipedia behaviour and not due to underlying issues of bias one way or another and would wish that everyone related to the case can reflect on why they are here.

That's all I really wanted to say. Again I think that it was just another "fortune" of timing that may have allowed me to toss my two pence worth into the ring. Try not to stir up unnecessary opposition for yourself.

If you have concerns regarding myself then I will be in no way offended by anything fairly presented. I probably share the same concerns.

Be well. GregKaye 05:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

note from clockback

In response to your ridiculous suggestion on the "Peter Hitchens" wi8kipedia entry, Do please try not to be so silly. See the note on that page from many years ago 'Of course I edit this entry'(April 2008, I think it dates from) . I have done it quite openly under my own name, and have limited myself very carefully to correcting factual errors made by others, which I am in a unique position to put right. On this occasion, I have been trying to insert a photograph of myself. The photographer has given me his written permission. I had taken it through the entire wikimedia commons procedure following all the required stpes. And an officious person then removed it without explaining why, and needlessly *deleted* it so that I have to trudge through the whole weary procedure again. I am seeking HELP from wikipedia editors in reinstating t, and get nno help, just these futile heavy-handed bureaucratic bureaucratic interventions. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockback (talk • contribs)

So COI in WP is silly but the presence or absence of picture of you is dire. OK then. Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

User:2600:1010:B04A:5273:7F:BB10:CBE2:75EB

Any idea who 2600:1010:B04A:5273:7F:BB10:CBE2:75EB might be? I can only make out a temporal connection. This page he edited is now on my watch list.--Aspro (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

no idea. i assume you mean the revert at march against monsato, right? If part of your question is - was that me, the answer to that is no. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

re. revert

Good doggy :) --TMCk (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• re. copy-vio: If you point it out to me I'll take a look and fix/remove it later.--TMCk (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sawdust Art Festival‎

Thanks for the COI assist on this one, much appreciated. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks! turned out to be mostly fans, rather than paid, it seems. they were hot to get that done! Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Numerous False Sock Puppet Accusations

Now that I'm back from a few days off, I see that you've got on a spree of accusing me of being a sock puppet in a variety of places. Of course, as I don't use sock puppets, it turned out that you were wrong. You left a pithy apology on my talk page, and that's a start, but you didn't go back and strike out all of the accusations, such as on high fructose corn syrup. If you are at all sorry for this buffoonery, I highly suggest you show it by going back and cleaning up the mess of false accusations. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

i already struck the incorrect statements (e.g. about the confusing dif). based on your continuing pattern of personal attacks and your shared POV on HFCS, your behavior is similar to the IP. i acknowledge that the SPI said you are not likely to be socking with the IP. the personal attacks are unnecessary; please stop. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

No, you didn't strike them out. You let them stand and didn't say a word about it anywhere but my talk page after accusing me on various pages. Strike them out and shove the personal bullshit. Enough is enough with this schoolyard behavior from you. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, do you always accuse someone that has an issue with your actions of personal attacks and commenting on you instead of content? You know, he does have a legitimate complaint. @Bloodofox, I would just let it drop. GregJackP Boomer! 01:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Aspirin

Hey Jytdog, I only just now noticed that you reverted this edit by saying that it lacked context. That's true, it could have done with more context, but I think the more productive approach would have been to drop me a note asking for some more context. Safety regulations surrounding the production of aspirin are really important because it is such a powerful drug and as such, the information has since been restored by another editor with more context. Please, next time, assume more good faith on my part. Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

holy exploding aspirin batman! please make sure to include context when you add content like that. this is a general encyclopedia - i know occupational stuff is huge for you but it is irrelevant to probably 99% of our readers and we don't want to scare the crap out of them. Please keep UNDUE and context in mind. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I'm stealing that as an expression. :) I'll be more mindful of context - as a heads-up, I'm planning to write more about production of pharmaceuticals and occupational hazards of administering/compounding certain drugs (mainly chemo drugs), if you want to take a look. Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

can i suggest that you ask at WP:MED about doing that more broadly? for me, i think that is really specialist information and to be frank i don't think it belongs in our articles. some articles have really basic chemistry about drugs but i am unaware of any drug articles that talk about actual drugs/devices/diagnostics/medical equipment manufacturing, much less risk to workers in manufacturing. the same thing is true about the practice of medicine in our health articles - there is not much about what doctors/nurses/technicians actually do, much less what the risks to them are. i think it would be an interesting discussion. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy to start up a discussion there. I think it's reasonable to include because we do talk about the synthesis of many drugs, but we'll see what people say. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

the synthesis is basic lab bench stuff. not manufacturing. thanks for opening the discussion! i will wait to weigh in, to see what others say. lovely interacting with you. Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You as well! :) Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Commenting at Bfpage's talk page

Hey, Jytdog. Since Bfpage no longer wants you posting at User talk:Bfpage, and since Bfpage has removed your posts in ways that left the remaining text somewhat incoherent or without defense (such as when you noted that you did not call me a disruptive editor), as seen here and here, I think it's best that you only comment there unless necessary. It seems you stopped commenting there after the removal of your posts. The reason that I don't comment there unless necessary is because besides my history with Bfpage, Bfpage, as you know, sometimes makes changes to the others' posts in ways that conflict with WP:Talk. I will try not to interact with Bfpage, which is what I had been doing for months, and I will try not to mention Bfpage after this point unless necessary, which is fair considering what has been outlined at User talk:Bfpage/guidelines by Bfpage and Kevin Gorman. Flyer22 (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

agreed. in my last remark to BfPage, i said that i wasn't going to engage with her anymore. my last remark on her Talk page was not to her but to GregKaye. after that, she banned me from her talk page, so no, i will not be writing there any more, to anyone! and i don't intend to interact with her unless she shows up at an article I already edit. Jytdog (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for keeping an eye on my talk page :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Bellarmine University

You deleted information I added to the Academic section because of my paid editor status. May I ask what was wrong with it? Dbilodeau (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe you that read COI and said that you understand it and will abide by it, right? If that is so, can you please tell me why you are editing the article directly? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

So you want me to get my desired changes peer reviewed first? Dbilodeau (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

that is what WP:COI says you should do. it is not a matter of what i want or what you want. good citizen, right? Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you for all the hard work you do on Wikipedia. Don't let your "fan club" get you down or provoke you into doing something silly. Keep up the great work! Yobol (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

thank you, yobol. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

GM review

I couldn't figure out how to work this article into genetically modified food controversies, so I am putting it here for your consideration in case you want to add it. Everymorning talk 23:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

and then there is stuff like this that says that whole food animal studies are not even ethical to do, as they add no value. The literature on this is exceedingly messy and politicized. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Senpion

I'm assuming, due to the lack of response from the user, that my initial assumption (which you echoed) was correct, and being called out on it caused the user to bail out on WP entirely. The edit history showed that those edits were the focus, and I don't buy the claims that were made subsequently. However, as no action occurred, what's the next step in case this happens again (though I doubt it, as I think the underlying tech has no traction)? MSJapan (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Just ping me, if you like, and i'll pick up the conversation where it left off. Sorry again that we dropped the ball at COIN when you brought it in the first place. Jytdog (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked User:Nuklear

I note that you have made several reversions of late from IP address 89.240.133.249 claiming that they are socks of the blocked user Nuklear. Whilst there is obviously no problem with reverting any contribution from a sock of blocked user (as in WP:BE), I am at a loss to understand why you believe that the IP address is in reality Nuklear. There is no history in the two articles of Nuklear making similar edits. I B Wright (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Nuklear had definitely edited both articles - see history of Triamterene (Deass is one of Nuklear's socks, as is 80.42.36.238); see Isocarboxazid history were Nuklear had edited under several IPs previously. 89.240.133.249 edited Triamterene and edited Isocarboxazid adding synthesis just like Nuklear. Jytdog (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, but I can find no evidence that User:Nuklear or User:Deass have edited any of the articles that you have named above in at least the last five years. Similarly, of the articles that Nuklear and Deass have edited, there is no evidence that they have been similarly edited by any other editor. Further, I have run the editor interaction utility on Nuklear and Deass and there is no interaction at all (i.e. they have never edited the same article). Thus: even if Nuklear and Deass were the same person, there is no sockpuppetry. Therefore, it seems to me that there is no plausible evidence that there is any sockpuppetry going on. I note that a few SPI cases have been raised but neither user has a block for sockpuppetry as a result, which I am not surprised as the cases against them were pretty thin. Even if a few IP editors are making similar edits to different articles that either Nuklear or Deass have made in the past, that does not prove sockpuppetry (on the part of Nuklear or Deass). It only proves that someone else agrees with them or is engaging in 'copy cat' editing. I do believe that there is a case that the IP address editors are probably the same person, but that is a whole different discussion. Your reversion under WP:BE is therefore inappropriate.

You should note that where one editor edits under multiple accounts, but does not edit the same articles with both accounts (or does not make the same edits to the same article), then that does not constitute a prohibited use of multiple accounts. I B Wright (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Please look at the User:Deass page - he is blocked as a confirmed sock of Nuklear. Nuklear and his socks have a very clear pattern of editing - always drug/chemical articles, always synthesis and adding similar chemicals to the "see also" section. Sorry but nothing you are writing is making sense. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I have had a look at User:Deass's user page. I have also had a look at the SPI case linked from that user page. Although the SPI case contains allegations and evidence that they may be the same user, there is no conclusion that says that they are actually socking. Also the interaction utility clearly shows that they have never edited the same articles (here). As I stated: neither editor has any block for sockpuppetry. The SPI case and the interaction utility clearly shows that whoever added those confirmed sock tags to Deass's and Nuklear's user pages had absolutely no right to do so as there is no evidence of socking or declaration of such in an SPI.

To underline the point that two accounts editing in a similar manner may be the same person but not be guilty of sockpuppetry, there is a more recent case where an IP editor made three reverts to an article. The article was then semi-protected. On needing to continue reverting to his version he switched to using a named account to continue the edit war. An SPI case was raised (and I seriously believed (and still do) that that did constitute socking). The case was rejected because although the edits were clearly the same person, they were not using both IDs at the same time. They used one and then switched to the other. I can't find it at the moment but will provide the link if I do.

As far as the IP addresses refered to above being the same user, they probably are but they are not using different IP addresses at the same time. They may well be a dynamic IP address over which the user has no control. There is therefore no evidence of sockpuppetry by anybody anywhere. I B Wright (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Found it! It's here. Coincidentally, it turns out that it was yourself who made the AN3 complaint that got the article semi-protected in the first place. I B Wright (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Further to the above, I have now checked out all the alleged sockpuppets of User:Nuklear listed at [6]. The editor interaction utility clearly proves that none of the listed accounts are sockpuppets of Nuklear. There are ten articles that Nuklear and User:Yid had both edited, but the period between edits ranges from 69 to 264 days. There are no common articles between Nuklear and any of the other listed accounts. This proves that even if Yid were to be the same user as Nuklear, there is still no evidence of socking by Nuklear. Whoever, created the Sockpuppets of Nuklear page, may have done so in good faith from the other pages or because there was circumstantial evidence that they may be the same user, but its creation was erroneous as there is no supporting evidence of actual sockpuppetry. There seems to be some evidence of copyright violation by the listed accounts but that is another matter entirely.

I also note that many of the edits that you are reverting are potentially good edits to articles such as this one. WP:BE is not a catch all that gives the right to revert any and every edit from a blocked user. Indeed, WP:BE states, "obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism [and presumably good faith contributions] can be allowed to stand". It is generally only the continuance of disruptive edits where the sockmaster was using the sockpuppet to support that should be reverted (though policy does allow you to err on the side of reversion if the case is not clear. I B Wright (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want to re-open any of the closed and actioned SPI cases, please do so at SPI (or under whatever the procedure is for appealing a sock block). This is not the place to do that. If you want to re-instate any of the reverts I made, please feel free. Please also note that if you make a habit of it, you will be taking on their behavior and may become subject to a block yourself, for the same reason they were blocked. Jytdog (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

btw I don't know where the diff is, but Nuklear/Deass/one-or-more-of-his-IPs mocked the community saying that he knew how to jump IP addresses and would continue to do that intentionally. I have no idea what is driving your interest but you are making pretty strong conclusions without being aware of all the facts here. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Resorting to threats is as good as conceeding the argument. I B Wright (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Not threatening, just describing reality. You own edits that you restore. Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You appear to have a strange view of reality. If I chose to reinstate any of the edits that introduced good material into the subject articles, I am at a loss to see what policy you would attempt to organise your threatened block under. As for my interest: I perceive, that for whatever reason, you appear to be pursuing a vendetta against this particular user by claiming sockpuppetry where there is no evidence whatsoever - and I regard that as unacceptable behaviour. I B Wright (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not pursuing a vendetta. Nuklear was blocked for consistently violating copyright, UNDUE, and sourcing guidelines. If you start consistently reverting me (which you are entitled to do) you will reinstate the sock's edits, which continue his violations. You will then own those violations. What is driving your interest in this? Please do answer. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, don't follow me around. Mind your own business! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.65.196 (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You lost your editing privileges. If you want to get them back, you can appeal your block. Until then, please stop editing Wikipedia. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please could you mind your own business and i'll do likewise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.130.70 (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You lost your editing privleges. If you want to get them back, you can appeal your block. This is a real community - you chose to ignore what people were telling you about what you were doing wrong. So you were blocked. You have to take that seriously. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't like your imperious behavior

This is in response to your post about removing my comment, which you posted on my talk page. Yeah i know you and i know what you did, Jytdog and i didn't like it one bit. My comment was to the point that you act imperiously and do whatever the hell you want despite the concerns and thoughts of others, and then you announce "this is the way!" and expect everyone to fall in line, so i called you "Your Highness" as an expressive form of sarcasm to tell you what i thought about your action, and then you deleted that very comment and showed even more that you're willing to act imperiously here and think you can control what the hell others are saying from their selves. It's classic behaviour from you, and i have a long history with you. And why were you even at that page -- following my contributions? Or did you have that page on your watchlist. Don't answer that because i do not trust you at all and would not trust your answer that you weren't following me. Our trust is completely broken, Jytdog, and i believe you're a bad and disruptive editor. I have work to do in the real world today and will not be replying here so this is the last from me for a while, but i want the world to know that i think you're a disruptive editor here in Wikipedia, and you've made my experience here contributing to this encyclopedia a whole lot worse than it could have been. No thanks for hounding me and accusing me of every paper cut charge under the sun. SageRad (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Consistenly destroying my edits and contributions and undoing them with threatening reason comments like "you are close to 3RR now!" ... oooh... you know, your behavior is very very very bad for a Wikipedia community member, and i bet there are a few dozen other people who wpould attest to very very very bad interactions with you, in which you use strawman argumentation, shifting goalposts, lawyerly language and techniques, annoyance tactics, and simply marching ahead and making edits that the group doesn't seem to want, and otherwise generally disruptive and non-cooperative behavior, anti-social behaviors that makes the whole process go a lot worse and complicates discussions that would otherwise be rather simple, and generally not seeming to be WP:HERE for real, as you've so often thrown that accusation at me, and WP:HOUND-ing people too, including me, and doing a whole lot of generally bad things. I'm gonna be gone from here for a while, but i'm leaving this extremely strong statement of my dislike for your behavior, and my general disgust at your imperiousness and obstructionism and obfuscationism. Yes, i am calling this out. I'm calling out your general bad behaviors that all seem to add up to a sort of agenda, as well, because you're ALWAYS lawyering for the side that would be the chosen agenda of the industry if they had someone working for them here, a single-direction force of non-cooperation here in Wikipedia..... why? Who are you? SageRad (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

He's just an editor, like you, except perhaps not. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 12:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry you have had such a hard time learning the policies and guidelines here, SageRad. I've done my best to help you. Jytdog (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with SageRad. Because you didn't like my previous post, he decided to track back through my contributions and revert five other major edits which took me hours to put together. Just because my edits are on articles of faith doesn't mean that the posts are inappropriate. The material is in character with the existing text of the articles, and most if not all the material was sourced to peer-reviewed published books. Those articles are stub articles that need additional information. Please stop attacking my posts. I am going to revert them all back except the most recent one, and hopefully you will leave them alone.IncreaseTheHeat (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you each are having similar struggles coming to understand how WP works. Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

In case you missed it

This.[7] The malformed template ref means their ping wouldn't have worked. Alexbrn (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

thx. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jytdog and User:Alexbrn reported by User:Anmccaff (Result: ). You can respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the notice. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)