User talk:Jytdog/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Primary sources?

Hi, sorry if I edited again at "Domestic violence against men", but as you can see on the article, ALL the sources are primary sources, see for example at the paragraph "the CTS" when it's written: "Linda Kelly states that etc. etc.". Isn't that the same thing that did I did too? Iamwho (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Happy to discuss at the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok I just wrote at the article talk page, see you there ;)Iamwho (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Bernard Harcourt

It looks like the subject of the article might be editing his page. It is certainly from the law school offices. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Cannabis!

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Cannabis! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 559 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in the subject of cannabis.

• Browse the new WikiProject page
• Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

AN

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (nothing bad, but I did mention you so here it is) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jytdog. You have new messages at Eframgoldberg's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ANI Discussion

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Two editors are mass deleting, Mass PRODing, and Mass redirecting articles as well as content under the guise of WP:COI--JOJ ^Hutton 00:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping vandalism on Irom Sharmila page

Hello Jytdog,

I would like to thank you for stopping vandalism on Irom Sharmila page. Specially the spam removal is appreciated. Kindly keep a strong vigil on this page, as many spammers are trying to spam here by promoting some self proclaimed activists with poor citation. As per my knowledge and understanding about Wikipedia, I have understood that Wikipedia is not for any self-promotion or link building service.

My two cents.

Regards-

Dhruba Jyoti Deka 03:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Dhruba — Preceding unsigned comment added by DhrubaDeka (talk • contribs)

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests

Hi, Jytdog. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Abuse of COIN. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 05:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

L235 Some of my post is replies - do the replies "count"? Thanks. My initial post was <500 words but I tweaked it and It is indeed now 561 words... will edit that part down now. Please do let me know about the replies. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the replies count. We're usually pretty lenient; 600 words is fine probably. Thanks - L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 05:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

oh crap. OK, more trimming then - got it down to 543. Thank you for the slack. Jytdog (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Verify vs. preserve

I was curious why you cited wp:verify for this edit. I tend to think of wp:preserve. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

HI, thanks for asking. First, I was 90% sure that was an edit by a sock of Nuklear but didn't want to give that reason b/c I wasn't very sure. (It turned out that the account made other edits that were perfectly Nuklear-like and I could have removed it per REVERTBAN.) Second, WP:VERIFY says "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed". I acknowledge there is tension between PRESERVE and VERIFY. If you want to find sources for that, ensure it is accurate, and restore it, that would be great. I am very committed to WP's mission to provide articles that serve the public "accepted knowledge" (per WP:NOT) and unsourced content is not verifiable as being accepted knowledge. I'll add that this is an article about a drug, and at WP:MED we are very committed to providing high-quality, accurate information. So VERIFY is all the more important there. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yup appears to be User:Nuklear. All we can do is continue to delete his content and block his socks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks for the explanation. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

If you think the content is good, not copyright infringement, and sources you could return it. But often I will just revert dozens of Nuklears edits at a time. His stuff comes up on the copy and paste detecting bot fairly often. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:GregJackP, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have been asked to stay off of my talk page. Please do not put any more bogus warnings there or I'll propose that you be blocked for harassment. GregJackP Boomer! 22:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You don't have the power to block me, and I do not believe an ANI would survive. You are so so over the top, GregJackP - you are on fire! Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

islamic banking

Please let us editors of Islamic Banking know when the cleanup of Sukuk's edits is done as I hope to make a lot of edits on that page. Thanks BoogaLouie (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi BoogaLouie - last I saw of that case, Ronz had brought up the two sites, islamicfinance.com and sukuk.com, at the Project Spam discussion page, here - the outcome was not to blacklist them. So the only question is whether they are reliable sources or not. I don't see that Ronz listed them at RSN. That would be the next step for a community discussion. But I would say that editors working at articles where they are cited can keep them or remove them, as they see fit. If disagreement arises then that discussion can be brought to RSN. That's how I see it. Ronz may have a different perspective. Thanks for asking! Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Why take them to RSN? There's no reason to believe they're reliable, and no one claiming they are other than the author. My thoughts/plans were to review it all, remove the sources, remove any material that appears questionable, and look for some authoritative sources which the articles sorely need. --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz. So there ya go. If you and BoogaLouie/others disagree, RSN is where you will end up. I don't plan on digging into that content myself. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No plans to contest Ronz deletions, (not that I have looked over Sukuk's edits). Thanks folks --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

COIN

Jytdog we need your work at the COIN notice board. Please be slightly more careful. Do not step back for more than a day or two if at all :-) I at least realize how nasty it can get. You are dealing with people who are trying to make money off of Wikipedia through PR work and in violation of our terms of use. I have already been threatened with a lawsuit by someone involved with PR. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James. The thrust of the arb's caution was to pause to listen to what folks are saying about my work there - folks who have concerns - and take that into consideration before I restart. I have gotten some feedback and am looking forward to a chat with Risker later this week. I'll be back into gear soon, with some rethinking. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes one needs clear evidence of COI before making a case. Off wiki evidence; however, can only be hinted at on wiki. It makes the work difficult. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It makes it a minefield. Jytdog, I echo what Doc James says above, you are a pillar of that difficult noticeboard and an example to others there. Perhaps sometimes when frustration or tension build up you could think about stepping away rather than stepping closer to the (personally drawn) lines of good behaviour here? But please don't step away for too long. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like to echo the above. Please don't stop working at the COIN. I think the issues arise (e.g., the Atsme Arbcom, which though a few of her points have merit is blown way out of proportion) when you unilaterally play judge, jury, and executioner, and do not stop or pause when legitimate, policy-based questions are raised by experienced users. I think when legitimate policy-based questions are raised (e.g. non-retroactivity of new policies) about the executioner part, you should probably step back and let someone else, or a consensus, help decide what to do and help in those actions. Softlavender (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. The stepping away for a bit is to get feedback and check my assumptions and strategies. That will take as long as it takes. I did push the Atsme thing too far. While nothing I wrote has been oversighted, it was bad taste. I know. And I can think of a couple others (literally - a couple) where I got too fierce. I hear you both and will try harder to keep emotion out of it and to step away when I feel restraint slipping. So little room for error in this work.

Softlavender with respect to your description of me as "unilaterally play(ing) judge, jury, and executioner, and do not stop or pause when legitimate, policy-based questions are raised by experienced users..." the generality of that statement is hard to read and the "executioner" thing is especially... inapt, as I am not an admin. (and if i ever become one, i would use blocking with extreme care due to the "no room for error" thing just mentioned) Are you saying that you see me doing that a lot, or are you reacting to the current ANI and Atsme things more specifically? If you are making a general statement, I would like to hear more about that - it would be useful to hear. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

By executioner, I do not mean admin actions, I mean making and carrying out unilateral decisions about what to do in a COI case despite objections: repeated unilateral mass deletion actions or edit-warring, longterm "stalking", "battleground" behavior, etc. -- the things that are currently in question in the ArbCom and current ANI. (I don't follow your wiki behavior or edits or even closely read the various ANIs that mention you [other than a glance at their length and contentiousness]). I simply happened to see and closely read both the ArbCom and current shopping-mall ANI at the same time, and note that the issue common between the two of them seems to be not stepping back when legitimate policy-based objections are made. It's one thing, and a great thing, to stamp out COI; it's another to be so vehement about it that you shoot yourself in the foot and/or repeatedly remove content that may not be COI or may simply need citation. If other uninvolved editors request that you slow down on a particular case/article and go through more of a due process, then perhaps that's the best thing to do. All of us can get very zealous about what we do on Wikipedia ... and for all of us (myself included), that's not always in our best interests. In any case, you don't have to agree with or take to heart what I have written (especially if it's not an issue that is more general than these two cases); I was basically simply asking you to please continue the COIN work and offering a suggestion on how to avoid possible overkill that may possibly be to your detriment. Softlavender (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying - again the purpose this "timeout" is to get feedback, so I appreciate you taking the time. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I've yet to get a clear understanding of all the discussions, but the first thing that stands out are the bad faith accusations against you that are a major part if not driving force behind it all. I'm still trying to figure out what to do in such situations, but I don't seem to do too badly when I just focus on deescalating the behavioral problems while putting aside the content problems. Doc James has given you great advice. --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

The Arbitration Committee has declined the Abuse of COIN arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC at V

I hope this was okay. I'm thinking that you just missed that there was a separate "support" section. If I'm wrong or have been presumptious, please rv and trout me as may be necessary. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

thank you for fixing my mistake. Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

EHS

Shame that article exists already, it would have been a wonderful choice for an April 1 TFA. LeadSongDog come howl! 12:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed! Now I understand what my own head has been doing! ;) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Pharmacogenomics Edits

Hi Jytdog,

I noticed you made an edit, with a note saying "academic spam." I ask for you to elaborate on that note, and possibly provide any reference to Wikipedia rules that validate that edit. That way, for my peace of mind, I can confirm whether to maintain or undo the edits accordingly.

Cheers,

Jarslan (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The bulk of that section was unsourced promotion of a few academic programs. No source saying that any of those courses is especially noteworthy. Universities spam Wikipedia all the time. If you want to restore that section with some sourcing and content that is meaningful (what is special about, say, University of Utah's courses) I will not object. Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I see. Well, I'm not affiliated with any of those institutions. So, rest assured that the intent was not to promote or spam. I've taken note of your concerns. It may be a few weeks, but I will restore and make those corrections appropriately. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cheers, Jarslan (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Mercola

Please stop the edit warring tactics on Joseph Mercola. You're attempting to have the article one-sided and that is very un-Wikipedia like. To the untrained eye it could appear that you may have some motivation in stopping info about mobile phones and the link to cancer. I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you'll allow the Joseph Mercola page to evolve into a balanced article that it should be. Thankyou Mr Bill Truth (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I moved your comment to the bottom of this page, where it belongs. If you continue to use Wikipedia as you have been, you are going to get thrown out of here. You have been given warning of the discretionary sanctions we have in place for pseudoscience - be mindful of them. If you have not read WP:NPOV carefully (and I do not believe you have) please do so. Please especially pay attention to the section on pseudoscience. NPOV =/= "fair and balanced". And if you are not aware of it, please read WP:Lunatic charlatans. Wikipedia has a very deep commitment to science. Jytdog (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Further to your edit warring

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

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

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

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Bill Truth (talk • contribs) 09:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

A couple of points Bill. Firstly, you forgot to sign, and secondly, do you know what edit warring is? -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 09:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder of what I forgot to do Roxy the dog. forgot to do :I have now fixed my sign off with the — Preceding unsigned comment template as you can see here. So that's the first point. Now, in reply to the second, well ..... edit-warring is what Jytdog and a few others engage in. Quite often the articles concerned are ones that involve GM crops, activists dealing pharmaceutical companies. Nothing new! Mr Bill Truth (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

But wait, Bill. Because you issued an edit war warning to Jytdog, I went to see where he'd been edit warring. Turns out he wasn't, hence my question above. See? -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 10:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Femarelle (DT56A) clarifications

Hello,

The "Femarelle (DT56a)" article has some incorrect information, along with the general feeling of a person trying to sabotage the product and the firm's good reputation. Femarelle is a food supplement for the management of menopause with 17 published studies in leading journals.

The first mistake is regarding to the (12) reference, Femarelle is not a Drug, it is a food supplement and has gone through PreIND reviews in the FDA as a botanical drug candidate, and was approved to go into Phase III based on existing data. Femarelle has tried to get a disease prevention claim for the reduction of osteoporosis and other bone disorders among post-menopausal women under article 14 of Regulation (EC) no. 1924/2006 at EFSA(1,12) , however the claim was not accepted and the file was withdrawn from EFSA. Hot flushes has noting to do with this reference as well. This information is correct, it is important to write it all and not only a part of it.

The second mistake is regarding to the ingredients, The ingredients in Femarelle are 322 mg DT56a (a tofu extract) and 108 mg flaxseed powder,[2] which act as a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM).

My final question is why did you delete the references? all of the references in my article are published and authorized by professional committees and peer reviewed journals, i would expect them to have great value for this article because they are public domain...all that needs to be done is to go to Pubmed"

Please take this information in consideration while re-editing this article.

Thank you. SecurePharma (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Securepharmaltd (talk • contribs)

Please post at the article's Talk page: this conversation belongs there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Tartrazine July 2015

Please visit the talk page of "Tartrazine" to resolve this issue. Sunpoint (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested edits on Cerner talk page

Hi Jytdog, I have added some suggested updates to make the Cerner Wikipedia article current and more reflective of the company as it is today.

Would you mind reviewing my suggested edits and adding them to the article or giving me feedback on what could improve my suggested edits? I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. JNorman704 (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I'm following up to see if you'd take a look at my suggested edits on the Cerner Wikipedia article talk page. I'm trying to update the article for factual accuracy and to give readers a more current understanding of the company. Please let me know if you're willing to either make my suggested edits or give me feedback on them. Please advise either way. Thank you so much for your consideration. JNorman704 (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

thank you for your patience and for following up! I will get to that tonight. sorry. Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I know you're busy so I appreciate any help. JNorman704 (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Not enough information in Femarelle article

Hello, This article has almost no information what so ever. Wikipedia is a tool used to help people get an idea about things they don't know about, a tool to get information. You deleted almost every reference that was added before, Why did you? In addition to all, you gave no information of the "mode of action" of the supplement, no information of the positive effects of use, not enough information what so ever, good or bad. I believe it is important to inform the articles writer that:

1. The legal regulations for marketing/presenting of such supplements are different i US, EU and in other parts of the world. the writer's EU-POV in this article is geocentrical and therefore not in line with W-policies.

2. As W prefers review articles as a source for medical and health information, it is important to draw the writer's attention to such an article with specific references to Femarelle: S. Bedell. et al., The pros and cons of plant estrogen for menopause, J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2012.12.004

3. the writer has removed so called «inappropriate categories» from the article, while another article on a SERM the writer has edited (Menerba) still are categorized in Menopause, SERMs, Herbalism and Botanial drugs. Why are these products treated differently?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by קוריןבןקים (talk • contribs) 06:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You left the same note on the article talk page. I'll reply there. Please also see the note I left on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alleged_hounding_by_SPA_User:Baroccas. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Femarelle (DT56a)

Hello, on your last edit you removed all categories, leaving not even one. Could you add a correct category no the article, broad as it may be. TNX, DGtal (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure. This is a better comment for the Talk page, however. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Warning 2

Who do you think you are leaving such an offensive, unfounded personal attack on my talk page? I will continue editing as I am doing and learning along the way by reading guides provided. Don't threaten me again because you feel sorry for this editor who holds a blatant COI and only entered Wikipedia to edit his friend and mentor's article. He has had conflicts with over 5 other well intentioned and experienced editors. Wikipedia articles are not fan pages! If you leave another message like that on my talk page I will take it your personal attacks to an administrator myself. Bring it on! I hope I have made myself patently clear sir!Baroccas (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Such ferociousness. Jytdog left some helpful advice, so this response is way over the top. Your battlefield attitude is not helpful. User:Gjboyle is a new editor who is learning how things work here, so don't bite the newbie. Your animosity toward him needs to be kept out of Wikipedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This one appears to be a sock. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 17:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I'll file an ANI momentarily. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

At least he said "sir". — Brianhe (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The addition of the "2" in the heading is necessary, since the TOC won't work properly with identical headings. Clicking on such a heading in the TOC can send one to a different section with the same title. I suggest you restore it, or modify it, preferably to the original heading, which shows the unreasonableness of the attack on you. Changing it removed the evidence from view. That only helps the attacker. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

ok, i put it back. thanks for telling me about the problem. Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Visual prosthesis

Would you like to explain why you think it appropriate to remove reference to the use of the Argus Retinal Prosthesis in a new context - which has been reported by national media in the UK?Rathfelder (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This discussion belongs on one of the relevant article Talk pages; I've already responded at one of them. Jytdog (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Clinuvel page

Well, the page was deleted. It's a shame. The admin said it was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I really don't understand where that guy saw the promotional content. Blockmaker00 (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

so it goes. a good try! Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for having recovered and improved the text after I have given up.Blockmaker00 (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Asparagus curillus

Sorry to trouble you again. I came across this article, which is notable by definition since it's about a plant species. Most of the text, however, makes medical claims sourced to three journal articles, two of which are written by the editor of the article. You are more au fait with the medical stuff than me, so I'd be grateful if you can spare the time for a quick look. The editor has removed the species box and my tags once, so you may need to check the history. No sweat if you're too busy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll do so later today. Thanks for pointing out the problem! Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for that, it's much better. I'll keep watching, although I suspect he's more concerned about keeping his journal refs than the medical stuff. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:1AM

You might find my essay at WP:1AM to contain some helpful advice. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I am listening, and I understand consensus very well. But thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Woodland Meadows speedy

Did you notice this? I almost wonder if it was a defense against a future speedy. — Brianhe (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced content?

Why delete a perfectly good chunk of an article instead of working on it? And yes, some of the content in Anavex_Life_Sciences was unsourced, but much of it was sourced, and the rest can be easily sourced if someone puts some time into it. If you look at the revision history, first sources were removed, and then it was claimed that the text was unsourced.--Agamemnus (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I added 3 sources from the company's website for 3 sections.. maybe some other stuff is unsourced; not sure. Doesn't mean one needs to go around removing it when it can easily BE sourced.--Agamemnus (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss on the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thalidomide use in tuberculosis

Hi, I saw you reverted my edit which added a subsection titled "Tuberculosis" to the Thalidomide article. Thanks for the advice that Wikipedia policy is to not use primary sources for medical research articles, which I wasn't aware of. (counter-intuitive to how one would cite a lot of primary sources when writing a research paper). I have re-written the section with citations of 3 review papers from separate groups of authors which are in agreement that it may be useful in cases of tuberculous meningitis. I've also left in the citation to a newspaper article for the interest of non-scientific readers because the study described was conducted at a reputable research university in South Africa, which has a strong TB research community. If you don't agree go ahead and delete the newspaper article link but I think the rest should be allowed to stand. Xenobiologista (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Phenothiazine possible effect

Hi Jytdog, I receive your edit war warning. I would like to let you know that the Phenothiazine could possibly trigger antiphospholipid syndrome as described in the session "Other clinical associations" aPL(Antiphospholipid) antibodies are also found in association with phenothiazines, such as described in Antiphospholipid Syndrome Antiphospholipid Syndrome among in the original link i posted to the article Liwk (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for talking. It is best to do this at the article talk page - if you would like to post there, i'll response there. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, i will move this to the talk page there then. Liwk (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Been there, done that

If someone's following you around & annoying you? the best thing to do is ignore that someone. I found out on Wikipedia, that if one doesn't have a strong support-base, then this is how to handle such situations. It's best to let somebody else deal with whoever's bugging you. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

GoodDay I know that. As I replied to you at ANI, the problem is that in the course of following me around, Elvey is making a mess of ongoing COI discussions. I cannot ignore it when Elvey purposefully disrupts those discussions as they did with ColumbiaLion or harasses editors who do the right thing and disclose, as they did at KaiserPermanente. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone should have notified you

...but they didn't, so I will. Editors are talking about you at WP:ANI#Hounding by GregJackP. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You are very welcome. FYI, you referred to Risker at ANI as "he", but she's actually a "she". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Quick word, and you can delete this

I think Anavex is probably notable enough for inclusion, though you are right that it needs to be much better sourced with regard to independent and secondary sources. Startups in pharma are most often notable if they are presenting at national meetings—it takes much more in the way of resources to open a chem-focused operation, than an app or other digital startup (I can tell you form first hand experience, having worked for the former, and started two of the latter in my living room). The fact that they are a penny stock, only, should not be used against them (and in fact is a plus, though it may mean as soon as they come up with something, they will be bought or squashed). My opinion. Will only express it at that deletion page if we can agree. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Please do at the deletion discussion as you see fit. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Just a final comment to close this, and then do as you will with the Section. (I would prefer deletion, because I got as personal as I get here, and I have not had a good record here with individuals who piece together who I am from snippets shared.) No concern for you, just all the others less committed to integrity. As far as that article goes, just be aware, I am viewing it as a business article, not a medical article, and so will (i) harshly edit any overstated medical claims, and (ii) view loosely any expectation that it still be around next year (because that is the name of the game, and we at WP have an opportunity to create records of such important entities, even if their existence in the long run is transient). I say important, because they have gotten buzz at Alzherimer's meetings, and so stirred the pot, even if that is all they ever do. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

thought you might be interested...

[1] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Xna

Hello Sir/Madam, I just wanna know what was wrong in the editing I did in in the topic Xna. Its just for the sake of my knowledge and nothing else Thanks Lekhni Tiwari (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! I would be happy to discuss on the article Talk page - please post your question there. Jytdog (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Forgotten NY "spam"

I know you are removing the Forgotten NY website links because it may be "spam". However, a closer look shows that this is not the case. Forgotten NY is a pretty reliable source as it goes, and the only mistake made here was that the site's operator added the links. Epic Genius (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

this is 100% spamming behavior. If you, as an independent editor, want to restore the link, evaluating each instance on an article-by-article basis, knock yourself out. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated response. It looks like some of the links were added before Mr. Walsh began editing, e.g. On the South Brooklyn Railway article. Epic Genius (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I just followed their contribs and reverted their spamming edits, one by one. As I said, if in your evaluation as an independent editor you judge that the EL adds value to any article, please feel free to include it. Jytdog (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your feedback. When i get the chance, I'll check them one by one. Epic Genius (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Source what?

Hi Jyt: On Alice, what do you want to source? The Diehr case from 1981 is [[ ]]'ed and there is a whole article on it? What do you mean by the Cn? Thx.

BTW, Jyt, you aren't a patent lawyer or a software person. Are you following me around? Why did you go to Alice? It's curious. - PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking about the cn tag. It means "citation needed" and we use that when someone adds unsourced content to Wikipedia. This is one of the things I've been trying to speak with you about - you cannot add content to Wikipedia based on your own authority - content needs citations that support it. This is a fundamental way that Wikipedia is really different from writing a journal article that has your name on it as an author. In this content you added, the first sentence is sourced. The second sentence is not sourced, nor is the footnote; that all came straight out of your head. That's not good editing, here in Wikipedia.

Am I following you around, and why did I go to the Alice article? I care about IP for a bunch of reasons. It is one of the key engines of the US economy and is playing a bigger and bigger role on the world stage as the "knowledge economy" is spreading into more and more industries. The Alice article has been on my watchlist for a long time. So no, I didn't follow you there. You are going to find me at a lot of IP articles. I care about it. I also deal with it as part of my job; I make decisions that depend in part on what kind of claims are allowable and what the chances are that issued claims will survive efforts to invalidate them. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Jyt, if you don't mind I will reply on the Talk page of the article. Thx. PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

i don't mind at all - that is totally appropriate. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

DRN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Ubiquinol.23Therapeutic_Uses_of_Ubiquinol_discussion Notification, cos the OP didn't do it. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 10:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why I bothered !!! -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 16:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

That was nice of you! I had been debating how to respond there... Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Crowdfunding

Hello Jytdog. A few hours ago you edited the article Crowdfunding which had just been edited by an IP user. While your edits were fine, the IP user's good faith edits are problematic, in that the IP user replaced significant portions of the debt-based crowdfunding section with different wording, and then used citations that are all about equity-based crowdfunding (apples and oranges, I'm afraid!). Anyway, I'm going to take another look at that section (in a few hours from now), but I wouldn't mind a second opinion before I boldly fix it. (I'll watch here for any reply -- no ping necessary)  Etamni | ✉  22:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

sorry - yeah i should have caught that. i fixed it. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You're quick! I just got home and just got to this on my to-do list and you had already fixed it (and probably did a better job of it than I might have!)  Etamni | ✉  01:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

glad you are pleased; least i could do after polishing a turd, as i did. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Tamoxifen and Aggressive fibromatosis

Tamoxifen is a complementary treatment for this illness. Source: Several online medical articles. Thanks.

Happy to discuss at the article talk page. "several online medical articles" is not going to cut it, btw. :) Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Can you exaclly explain what the wrong of the soruce?.--Jobas (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay i saw now the talk page. i will bring one. Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Jobas Yes that is for discussion on the article Talk page. While we are talking on user Talk pages, I have noticed that you are on a bit of a streak, editing about Christians in science. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy, per the policy WP:NOTADVOCACY. I am not making a statement that you are doing that, at this time, but I am giving you a heads up. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not pushing any propaganda here or using wikipeida as platform for advocacy, and i'm pretty awar of the rules in wikipedia. And still don't think there is a single problem editing about Christians in science if my edit will be supported with sources. Thank you for your concern.--Jobas (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the thanking me on the edit of the page on Peter Gelb. Gretchen Mädelnick (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

it was a good self-catch. :) Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom case "Editor conduct in e-cigs articles" has now been opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 18, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Quinn

They are indeed better quotes from Gene Quinn. But the old ones were OK too and had some substance. No reason to remove them, PraeceptorIP (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This is better discussed at the article Talk page, but it is a question of WEIGHT, right? Should we include the ones I added and the ones you picked, that would give an awful lot of weight to his views, don't you think? Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. PraeceptorIP (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my error

I was a bit sloppy when I added the zeros and did 3 too few. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it and fixing it up! Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Richmond Pharmacology

Let me know if you think it needs protection. Deb (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Deb, since they have come back a second time, that would be great, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I see someone beat me to it! Deb (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes things got a bit hairy today. thanks for being willing! Jytdog (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

PBC and advocacy

Starting a new section to move on from previous discussions.

As you know I have tried again to describe in Primary biliary cirrhosis the Name change initiative and its result. You reverted several of my changes on the grounds of WP:NOTADVOCACY and also WP:NPOV, and WP:VERIFY. I am trying to document the process behind this change in name (now accepted) as we had in the PBC article before merging. I thought the change you reverted here [2] was not advocacy as it was a summary of the process described by the AASLD in ref 7.[3] Before I revert/revise this again, I would be grateful if you could read that source again and discuss or preferably edit the entry to what are considered WP standards. I would not consider the professional AASLD society an advocacy organization. I am also aware of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PRIMARY. Jrfw51 (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I am going to ask you some other questions first. Why is the detail about the process important for the encyclopedia? Why will this detail matter in 10 years? Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Readers will find references to "primary biliary cirrhosis" in the old literature and not understand why it is now called "primary biliary cholangitis". How did the that name change come about? Compare (as I know is irrelevant to much of WP) "Campylobacter pyloridis" becoming "Helicobacter pylori", or "Serum hepatitis" being dropped in favor of "Hepatitis B". The effect of "patient advocacy" is possibly notable too, now the name change has professional acceptance. I cannot immediately think of any other disorder where patients have advocated and achieved this. (Careful here not to do original research!) I consider the history of disease and scientific changes to be important to WP as well as a description of current thinking (hence my previous edit here of AMA discovery). Next question? Jrfw51 (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The existing content already makes it clear that the proposed name change is coming from patient advocacy. The sentence you asked about adding back is "A global survey was conducted of PBC patients and healthcare providers, with the results overwhelmingly in favor of "primary biliary cholangitis" (as this preserved the PBC initials). ". (for which you provided no source) (and the source you provided above describes much more ....homely than the grand process you described - they used email chains and Facebook for pete's sake). In any case, the question I asked you is why the sausage-making described in that sentence matters. The existing content already makes it clear that the patients advocated for the name change, so your answer doesn't really speak to the question about why the details of the sausagemaking matters. Why does it matter? Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The point needs to be made why patients wanted the change (most do not have cirrhosis and want to avoid the negative connotations) and that surveys of patients and healthcare providers were conducted. The PBC Foundation press release gives a patient perspective on this but we probably should not use. The AASLD reference should have covered that. There was much more in my July 8 edit. Patients see this as important -- see the April 8 change [4], the June 9 change with my subsequent edits. [5] I am trying to balance these views. Jrfw51 (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You are not answering why the sausage-making matters from a WP perspective - you don't seem to even see the question. So...it is clear by now that you are here to get content into Wikipedia that promotes the agenda of these advocacy groups. That is not OK. I am sorry you are not interested in becoming a Wikipedian. If you figure out what I even mean by that, I will be happy to work with you. But I have given you a bunch of my time already and I am not one to keep banging my head against the wall. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it is worth remembering that wikipedia isn't written for patients but for the general public. What patient/advocacy groups say isn't going to decide what wikipedia says, though their interests may be taken into account. Our policies generally encourage an entirely mainstream view which advocacy groups sometimes cannot understand. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 12:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit war notice

Please discuss the proposed edits per WP:BRD.

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

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

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SageRad (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Obstetrics and Midwifery

Hey Jytdog, I just wanted to thank you for doing all that work splitting Obstetrics and Midwifery, and for doing it so quickly. That was one of the messiest RMs I've ever closed, and I go back a while. I think the 'pedia's in a much better place thanks to your efforts.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for closing that messy RM! Sorry for the big gap from when I started to when I finished.. got called into a meeting. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Si mi amigos pero (that is a hint and most likely not spelled right or perhaps not even the right words...) is not something missing from the OB article? :D Gandydancer (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Nuklear

Am looking at more mechanisms to address [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Tropinone

You have deleted valid content nothing to do with a sock puppet, please fix V8rik (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

this reverted content by an IP that is definitely a sock of Nuklear. this removed content added by Nuklear as Nuklear and serves as a magnet for him to come back and fuss with. If you want to revert either you are free to, but then you own it. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have restored content. This content can be attributed to credible users. V8rik (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Your additional comments are very useful. They can take them into account. Some but perhaps not all of the things you mention Atsme has owned up to elsewhere on the page. I'm just stopping by to let you know that there's nothing personal.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

K, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

About changes to "major depressive diorder" page

Hello Jytdog

I have made an addition to the "major depressive disorder" page which was not accepted. I wonder why. Not mentioning sleep deprivation and phase advance as treatment options for depression is an unfortuate omission which betrays a serious lack of knowledge. There is an increasing awareness among researchers that sleep abnormalities play a central, some say causative, role in the emergence of depression and that knowledge should be mirrored in the page in question (which otherwise seems good). Sleep deprivation is the only known method that can lead to immediate remission of depression with a single treatment! Not even intravenous ketamine/amphetamine or ECT can do that. True enough, the method has some drawbacks, like its difficulty of administration and relative obscurity, but it should still be mentioned. Further, the references I have added to the text are all respectable and upp to date.

It is true that I am not well versed in the advanced editing functions of Wikipedia. If I have done some procedural error (which I am sure I have) please let me know how I can correct it. I am already learning how to "talk" with other contributors on Wiki! The text I tried to enter in the page comes mostly from another wikipedia page with some additions of mine to make it fit in in the new context (is that allowable? I dont now). In any case, I attact the text below again. If you don't find it to much of a burden you may uppload it yourself according to all the rules of the book. The science in it is hard as a rock!

Best regards

Sleep deprivation and phase advance

Studies show that sleep restriction has some potential in the treatment of depression. Those who suffer from depression tend to have a differing sleep architecture than healthy subjects. For example, they have earlier occurrences of REM sleep (with an increased number of rapid eye movements) and a circadian shift of their sleeping cycle. Therefore, monitoring patients' EEG and awakening them during specific periods of their sleep cycle – usually during REM occurrence or during the second half of the night - appears to have a therapeutic effect, alleviating depressive symptoms (see cited references for protocols). As many as 60% of patients, when sleep-deprived, show immediate recovery, although most relapse the following night. The effect has been shown to be linked to increases in the brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). It has been shown that chronotype is related to the effect of sleep deprivation on mood in normal people: those with morningness preference become more depressed following sleep deprivation while those with eveningness preference show an improvement in mood. A comprehensive evaluation of the human metabolome in sleep deprivation in 2014 found that 27 metabolites are increased after 24 waking hours and suggested serotonin, tryptophan, and taurine may contribute to the antidepressive effect.

The incidence of relapse can be decreased by combining sleep deprivation with medication and/or "phase advance". Many tricyclic antidepressants suppress REM sleep, providing additional evidence for a link between mood and sleep. Similarly, tranylcypromine has been shown to completely suppress REM sleep at adequate doses. Phase advance is the procedure whereby a person goes to bed and wakes up substantially earlier than he usually does, for example at 20:000/04:00 instead of at 24:00/08:00. This procedure has a well-documented antidepressive effect.

References

Thanks for talking! But this content is being discussed on the talk page of that article - see Talk:Major depressive disorder - and that is where this belongs. Jytdog (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Atsme's page

Jytdog, I agree with Serialjoepsycho above that you've made some useful comments on Atsme's page, but please stop posting now. You realize that a blocked user is confined to their talkpage, and therefore you have to be extra careful of poking or the appearance thereof. If you want to have a flame war an argument with GregJackP, do it somewhere else. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC).

I did a last response to atsme - my first time addressing her, and now i am done. understood, thanks. i have zero desire to have a flame war with anybody. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

and just removed it. better to follow your advice. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Template: POV

Jytdog, Template:POV lists three reasons for removal of a tag and none of those have been met. While lack of discussion for a lengthy period of time is a valid reason for removal, it has been just a matter of a few days since the last post on the talk page. To that end, would you consider contributing something to those discussions on the talk page? I think it's a good a good idea to get as many editors to help come up with solutions as possible, and I welcome you to join in. LesVegas (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

you are all alone in wanting to keep that tag. not a good place to be. Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not true. If you participated on the talk page you would've noticed the tag is supported by five editors, including myself. LesVegas (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I did read, and while I do see other folks discussing sources who share your concerns, I saw no support for the tag. Now that I posted, I see that another pro-acu editor has come out in clear support. I certainly won't continue the edit war. I don't mind the tag being on the article, actually. It is going to a mess as long as editors like you insist on pushing for content beyond what is accepted in the mainstream. Part of why the reality-based editors hold such a strong line is that there is no assurance from editors like you, that you would restrain yourselves if they relaxed. You all need to define a DMZ around what is truly mainstream use and agree to keep people on all sides from expanding or contracting it without very strong consensus. I'll try proposing that on the talk page (again) but I doubt it will go very far. Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Great joke JD, but seriously, do you really expect Les and other editors of that ilk to behave that way? -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 12:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

you never know until you try. nixon went to china. Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

...and Mao said, "I spy a sucker" and undermined the world with communist alt med </end sarcastic rant> -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

i left the door wide open for you to stick that in, didn't i. Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

indeed. I rubbed my paws together and licked my chops before typing that. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editing. Thank you. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

My content was removed for being "lawyer spam"

--Patzivota22 (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC){

Hello Jytdog. I would like some clarification as to why a paragraph I added to the Glyphosate page was removed for being "lawyer spam" (your revision is here). I added it about two months ago. The content, yes, does involve a legal situation, but it is neutral and sourced. So, I ask: what is the issue here?

Anyways, I do appreciate your time and you seem to be a very active editor on Wikipedia, which I highly respect! Keep up the hard work! Thanks.

Patzivota22 (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Patzivota22:If the lawsuit is notable, then there will be independent, reliable, uninvolved parties talking about it. The removed stuff was sourced only to the class-action lawyers' website (aka lawyerspam). Brianhe (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. My apologies. This stuff is still new to me. I will try to locate some independent, reliable parties for the lawsuit. Thanks for the information, Brianhe. Patzivota22 (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Patzivota22 Some additional notes. You should also know that the lawyers who filed the suit have themselves been trying to get publicity for it by adding spammy content about it, to Wikipedia, which was noted at our COI board here. Please also note that we generally do not discuss lawsuits that were just filed or even the blow-by-blow - just the outcome. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. See WP:NOTNEWS. While you are on that page, which is policy, by the way, please also see WP:SOAPBOX - Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advocacy. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Jyt, you're quite right about that. There is altogether too much law firm spam being injected. PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hm! Interesting. If you find cases of clear COI editing by attorneys please let me know and I would be happy to address it with them. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytog Thanks for the info. I feel like a complete idiot for adding that content. I thought it was acceptable, but I was wrong. I'll work on improving! Patzivota22 (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for being so gracious! There is a learning curve here - please feel free to ping if you like. Jytdog (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

difficult prose in judith butler

hi, you reverted my edit on the judith butler website. i don't agree with you. writing on wikipedia is always a matter of interpreting the sources at hand. one source is a random 'bad writing contest'. i don't know how this singular instance translates to 'she is well known for ...'. in the second source, however, the interviewer exactly wants to demonstrate the accessabiltiy of her writing. here, even more, i don't know how this translates to 'she is well known for ...' i'm going to raise this issue on the jb discussion page. --NOTME NEVERME (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I agree with NOTME NEVERME, and have removed the phrase again. Jytdog, you wouldn't revert a new contributor just because they don't know the policies, the guidelines, the alphabet soup to point to, would you? Bishonen | talk 09:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC).

No, I wouldn't. Please see the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

A new essay

Hi I have tried my hand at writing an essay. While we dont always agree on subjects, you do have a good knowledge of WP and base what you post on logic. If you have a spare moment take a look and let me know what you think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlbinoFerret/The_rules_apply_to_everyone .AlbinoFerret 19:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I like it!!! nice job. (i have quibbles of course - "rules" is a bit unwikipedian but I get the rheotorical point you are making) btw WP:NOTABOVE is available as a shortcut if you want it (as in "no one is above is the law") Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, It took a little bit, and I am not through polishing it quite yet. But I think its ready for more then my eyes. I like the redirect. I just created it. AlbinoFerret 20:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Good addition!

This! --ukexpat (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

that is a good source! Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The TM in Roxy the dog

You did that quite coldly and deliberately, and I am now wracking my brains trying to remember. Jarlsberg cheese comes to mind, from july last year, but my usual edsum doesn't give pag. I'll sleep on it. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 01:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

roxy what are you upset about? i love the TM in your name. Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

not really upset, but saw JD started discussion about subject. Made me think when I was about to sleep. Hmmmmph. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 01:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry sleepy dog. may you catch many rabbits in your sleep. Jytdog (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Phantom Limb Research

The material I added is based on recent research done by Tamar Makin (Oxford). She one of the leading experts on Phantom Limb phenomenon. I cited the complete research article. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24220510

Perhaps you would be so kind as to restore the material you deleted so that we can avoid an editing contest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurorel (talk • contribs) 18:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

just because something has published in biomedical journal doesn't make it a WP:MEDRS source - but we should discuss on the article Talk page - happy to respond there at more length. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Serotonin

The part that we are in disagreement about being in the edit is extremely important to innate immunity. The types of cells that you get the most serotonin production from are nasty and create very nasty biotoxins. The serotonin causes mobility and so your body rids them as fast as possible. There are serious implication to absorbing the biotoxins instead of eliminating them, as when one has low serotonin production and has constipation issues instead of getting diarrhea. It is the microbial metabolites that are signaling the EC cells to produce the serotonin.

I started researching serotonin because of an article, http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013346, Platelet Serotonin Level Predicts Survival in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.

I was trying to figure out the best microbials for probiotics to increase serotonin production and when I found the microbes that produced the most serotonin are responsible for making biotoxins like botulism, and other very nasty poisons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwot (talk • contribs) 02:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! I'd be happy to discuss this, but we can do it on the article talk page? If you just copy what you wrote there, i'll reply there. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to get it onto the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwot (talk • contribs) 03:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Every article in Wikipedia has a Talk page that you get to, by clicking the "Talk" tab in the upper left hand corner. The direct link is Talk:Serotonin. Jytdog (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion in which you are involved

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorporateM (talk • contribs) 00:40, 15 August 2015‎ (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is being subject to a formal editing restriction logged on the list of community imposed sanctions with the usual administrative repercussions for any violations what you meant when you said that you would not interact with them going forward? That seems to me a rather large step beyond what you were offering, and certainly not supported by any reasonable level of uninvolved/impartial consensus in that discussion. --92.25.5.76 (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hm. maybe. i am not a drama monger so don't really care. i don't intend to interact with corporateM anymore. but please tell me, is there some reason why I should care? Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Intestinal epithelium certainly needs some work which I will get to. Thanks for alerting me. Jrfw51 (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

glad it is of interest! thanks for digging into that. Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Mobile phone edits

Jytdog,

For the last day or two I have been away from a real computer and have made a few edits from a mobile phone, at least one of them while accidentally not logged in. When I last switched on my mobile, about eight hours before writing this, I immediately read a message signed by you, containing words like "are you editing from a mobile phone, or something?" But before I could check what page I was reading and whether it was addressed to me, I clicked on something and lost the page.

If the words were in fact addressed to me, I hope you will tell me where they are or what they were about, so that I can apologise or make good the damage. If they weren't, I guess it just demonstrates my incompetence with mobiles anyway, and you should ignore this message. Maproom (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall! - I just looked through our interactions and didn't find that. hm! Thanks for writing here in any case - our interactions have all been interesting and good from my perspective. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

edit warring?

Your amateurish attempt to scare me is actually a violation of WP guidelines. You can't just drop a severe threat of edit warring like that with thenecessary precautions. Sakimonk ^talk 19:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry that you see talk page warnings as a threat - a severe one, even. They are there to be used as a warning - it is what they are for. Time to start talking! I already opened a discussion at the article Talk page and look forward to seeing you there. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree with your points but you don't need to bloody say you're threatening to block me after I reverted one time. You should open a discussion and leave a polite notice on my talk page then if I start reverting you call it edit warring. Sakimonk ^talk 19:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

again I am sorry you found it scary. generally if an editor re-reverts instead of opening a discussion per WP:BRD, i provide that warning about the importance of talking. i don't have to go to the edit warring board very often, which is happy. but again, sorry you found it scary. Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Your revert

[7] Explanation please? P.S. Please see WP:SORTKEY bullet point #7. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

that appeared to be a test edit. My apologies, will unrevert. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Lying and cheating

I think this thread says it all. This arrogant cheater was caught lying a long time ago. This guy has no place on Wikipedia. The Dissident Aggressor 13:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

as I wrote there i would not oppose a move to indef him and think that move would have a good chance of succeeding. Thanks for your efforts to preserve the integrity of WP. I do think that you have been too harsh - I only say that for two reasons. first, issues of paid editing are controversial. There is a significant minority in WP that thinks it is OK. Treating suspected paid editors harshly undermines the overall effort to create consensus around the issue and could one day getting you in trouble. (especially with your username!) The second reason, is that I am sensitive to hounding, because I am and have been hounded by people who are convinced I am a shill and it is... ugly. They really believe that about me; like you really believed that Wintertanager was a paid editor. You happened to be right.... but in my view that doesn't make treating people badly OK. I don't know if that makes sense to you. Anyway, thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You have a very thoughtful and nuanced approach to editing here. You'd make a hell of an admin. The Dissident Aggressor 15:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

that is nice of you to say, thanks! and really, thanks for staying after WT - follow up is so important on this COI stuff. so thanks Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thank you very much for implementing the archiving bot to my talkpage! Sakimonk talk 22:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

you're welcome! Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

ENSSER

I've been thinking about the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility, a group which I believe you are familiar with (they defended Seralini after his FCT paper was retracted). Do you think this organization is notable enough for its own article? Everymorning (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

yes i am familiar with them. it's a FRINGE advocacy group; it will be hard to make a decent article.Jytdog (talk)

Honor Society

Why do you keep removing critical information from the NSLS wiki page? There is not nearly enough info on this company right now and you should be adding stuff to the page right? What do you think the page needs then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Die death1 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article's talk page. That is what it is for. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I saw your mea culpa at ANEW. Just be careful here. Brianhe (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. Jytdog (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Note

So jytog just want to say no hard feelings i thought you were getting overly personal but if you can get two editors to agree with you then maybe it's me the page is yours. if you know you're trade you can find info to update the irom sharmila chanu page i don't think i can contribute to it in a way that anyone here finds helpful and I have things to do. Take care now 78.17.55.197 (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

it is not personal - you are welcome to contribute to the Talk page, please just don't write stuff there that is your opinion about the situation or bringing sources that we cannot use. The Talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. That is its only purpose. Jytdog (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Then can I say that you are mistaken about verifiability. E-pao you claim does not have it. But my understanding is according to Wiki it's not about truth. E-pao is unreliable often untruthful but it fulfills wiki's verifiiability conditions. Also when you complained to have the page locked the response was that it did contribute to discussion. I don't like discussing things here because you can be oversensitive and keep threatening to block me. But if you are serious. What criteria make you think that E-pao lacks verifiability. I agree it's not truthful that's because of intimidation and bribery. The other thing which was odd even though the chappie disagrees with your opinion on my contribution because he accepts I did use references they are still deleted and he said he would back you even though he didn't think you were right. This is a gentlemen's club and you have blackballing privileges because you put the time in and i am never going to put the time in. But in terms of Sharmila nothing is coming out now looks like the place is getting set for PR. But it's my opinion origional reasearch and I am just saying is all. So ignore that last. But about verifiability what are your criteria you don't state them. You just point to a wiki page which has loads of different criteria but you don't cite which ones you feel epao lacks in this case that is. If you are still reading just because a blog page exists for a few years does that give it whatever wiki claims is brownie points. Anyone can set up a blog. How do you choose external links. I would have put Sharmila's actual physical address up. Giving a blog address merely aids the cover up. But what are the criteria for picking blog links. Bearing in mind very few people read these pages. But it's important to you and she aint dead yet. If she dies no I don't care what you write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.55.197 (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC) I am assuming you aren't incompetent this is the first report I have seen for one of the two trials in Imphal at the Uripok Cheirap Court day four of prosecution evidence http://imphaltimes.com/news/item/3443-sharmila-produced-before-court again the report is not accurate but it is verifiably published. And you claimed you wanted verifiable references. If this irritates you here please politely say so stop threatening to block me. I know it irritates you on the irom sharmila talk page but you have never made it clear why other than quoting a page of wiki jargon and not specficying what your objection is. If you want to play nice then explain what the problem is rather than just going on about how busy you are. I was quite excited it's the first paper to publish her name in Imphal for months. I know you're not interested in that bit. So ignore that bit.78.17.55.197 (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Listen. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is very clear that you are passionate about Sharmilla. That is great but it just has no place here - this is not a place for advocacy for anything per WP:NOTADVOCACY which you haven't read or taken on board. Please actually read that. Thanks.

The link you cite has no encyclopedic information in it. It is just a brief news piece. WP is not a newspaper - it is not a blog. We don't "report" the latest and blow-by-blow events of things. Please stop abusing Wikipedia. I am sorry for what you and she are going through. Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You get I am passionate about Sharmila and you are passoinate about this wiki page. She isn't here and there's no point in getting between a man and the object of his passion. You never answered teh question on verifiability by the way. You just brought in a different objection. My assumption is if resolve one problem you just make up another. Passion is like that enjoy78.17.55.197 (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

What you have been doing is wrong in WIkipedia in many ways. That source could have been OK (sorry for not saying that), but what it says is nothing to add to the encyclopedia (which is what I did say) Jytdog (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment Removal

Sorry about that-- yes, it was an accident! Will that stay on the page forever, or is there a time when it gets removed? I have edited things and made the page a bit more concise since the comment, though I'm afraid to submit it for review again while that comment is still there, no? Thanks again for your guidance! WriterFly (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

once the article is accepted, all that cruft about the AfC process goes away. But as long as it is a draft, it stays. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I will see you at

…the appropriately chosen Adcom, for your failure to engage in this matter as advised by the Admin originally involved, and failing to AGF and engage other editors just as informed and due respect and involvement as you are. Nothing at Wikipedia is irreversible. This was a bad, summarily enacted decision without enough time and editors speaking to it, and with important continuing negative ramifications. Enjoy your day. Le PRof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see my response to you at the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing found, and no link provided. Matter is going forward, unless you revert, and leave the Foundation article in place until a discussion can be completed. Your heavy-handedness and disrespect for the novice editor involved will be reviewed. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I responded on both relevant Talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You clearly posted here before the other pages.

The all caps formatting was used to get attention. You may interpret it other than it was intended; it was necessary because I had asked the same thing repeatedly of you before, and yet you steamrolled ahead, regardless. I needed to be sure you were seeing my requests, and ignoring them and acting regardless. You have confirmed seeing them, and so the larger text served its purpose. I will accept any punishment necessary for not knowing there was a rule against such formatting.

I have not misrepresented Sandstein. He made clear that the merger did not need proceed, and that discussion could continue.

You have flexed your editorial muscle, further disrespecting two editors, myself and the novice. If you want this matter to remain civil, and as an editorial matter, with a true aim toward broad consensus, then put the PBC Foundation article back up. It is only you, and at best, a cabal of two, that is insisting it needs come down immediately. (And there are two asking it not.) Put the PBC Fndn article back up, or we deal with this on the basis of your treatment of Jrfw51 and the principles relevant to Wikipedia that are involved, via discussion before administrators. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I will no longer post at this page, or at my Talk page regarding this matter. There are too many venues going. If you have anything further to say, say it at the PBC article talk page. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see my comments at Talk:PBC Foundation. Your opinion and involvement will clearly be key to any restoration of the Foundation as a separate entry. Now what would you propose to do about all the other Health charities Category:Health charities which have separate entries to their disease pages and rely heavily on their own websites? Jrfw51 (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I despair at the WP:POINTiness of your remarks about articles about other charities. Wikipedia is wildly imperfect - we all do the best we can, where we can. If you are going to run around WP grinding axes - that every other disease advocacy group articles should be treated just like "yours" was, out of anger or some sense of injustice - you are not going to last long here. On the other hand, if you now have a better grasp of WP:ORG and want to improve the encyclopedia so that more articles on disease advocacy groups meet our policies and guidelines (and there is a remarkable amount of COI/PROMO/ADVOCACY editing when it comes to nonprofits generally), then please, go to work on them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again for your advice. Jrfw51 (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog:. Jrfw51 has been very cordial with you in his/her wind-down of this matter, so let me be blunt and say this one thing, one time. I think you acted monstrously, especially early, in your responses to him/her, as a newer editor, holding religiously to a perfectionist bent—hear this, it is coming from the guy who 99.5% is in your camp, the guy who tags everything and "refimprove section"—a bent that said "this stub does not hold to my citations standards, it has to go." Never mind that you were wrong to apply MEDREF standards to an article about a charitable org, initially, which coloured your interactions with the novice editor, early on. Nvm that you misconstrued that s/he was an advocacy editor, associated with the article, leading to a similar initial negative bias from you. Nvm that she (and later I) tried working with you to show you sufficient org articles were available to stop the merger—asking only that the article be allowed to progress for a few days, to see if, with the citations in, a fair comparison could be done to other char org articles. No, the massive two editor majority in the deletion-becomes-merger discussion had to be adhered to. You had fixed in mind it had to go, so it had to. And so instead of making the charitable, decent decision to let the merger matter ride, you acted on the amazing majority-of-two mandate over our objections—because technically you could. Forget right or wrong, "allowed" was all you needed. Well congrats, you were successful in getting the stub deleted, while at the same time contributing to one of Wikipedia's more shameful personal moments, in my direct experience. The stub is gone, but it is, even so, less diminished from this than you are. It has been hard since seeing you do the merge, unnecessarily, over our request to hold, to see that choice as anything other than a deep character flaw, as true colors showing through. And regardless of it being an instant or a pattern, it will be very hard to muster respect for your ongoing efforts when this "win at all costs" attitude has been shown to be even a possible part of your makeup. I say this, frankly, but also with some insight. Because I wrestle with the same, and the only thing sadder than seeing it outside of me, is seeing it inside. I was once compared to—and now compare your choices in that debate—as acting like a terrier going after prey. The advice I heard that changed me—yes, be so, but do it for the little guy, not for your own ego. Admit you are wrong, unsink the teeth, and let the rat go every once and a while. (If you have ever watched what such a terrier becomes in the midst of his work, perhaps you understand what it is a fearsome comparison.) More importantly, fight for the little guy. Bottom line, the battle was won, but I propose an important war was lost, in your not giving an inch, not extending grace to the the little guy here, which was the novice editor on the other side of the debate. Well, that is my opinion, take it or leave it. If you ever want a tough, pro-sourcing collaborator in a science article, you can count on me. But know, for sure, in the end, it is the people, and the grace that you muster from within you, that counts. Last word from me on this. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Five points in response:

First, thanks for talking. I do hear what you are saying, but I don't agree. Le Prof you really came at this in a strange way.

Second, I didn't apply MEDRS to that article.

Third, your actions were out of line with WP:CONSENSUS, the bedrock policy of this place, in two ways. The first is that they disrespected the decision of the AFD, the second and more important way is that they were out of line with the process to object to deletions - that process was established by the consensus of the community. It is a good thing for you, that you didn't follow through with your proposed ANI, as it would have led to a boomerang.

Fourth, with regard to Jrfw51's advocacy in Wikipedia on behalf of the patient advocacy groups -- I am sorry that you cannot see that. Advocacy (of which COI is a subset) is in my view the biggest problem Wikipedia has. People often come here because they are passionate about something; that passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute, but it also often (not always) leads to advocacy editing that warps content in all kinds of ways (most often, UNDUE, which makes sense when you think about it - The Very Important Issue ("TVII") is very important so deserves a lot of space and emphasis, in their view) and can lead editors to treat other editors like shit, because whatever TVII is, it is often more important to the advocacy editor, than all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or any other person here. Thank goodness Jrfw51 kept his/her head during the deletion dispute and has always remained civil. But the deleted article was clearly the product of advocacy (it didn't meet NOTABILITY - as an article it was "UNDUE"); some of their editing on that topic since then, has also been advocacy-driven. Many of their edits are great.

Fifth, throughout those events, I was very concerned for Jrfw51 and I wrote to him and with him in mind, and followed up with him to explain. Working with new editors and respecting them as people, doesn't mean blessing every thing they do; it does mean talking with them and explaining why things are happening in light of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines - it does not mean behaving in ways that blow off consensus and shouting.

Summarizing all this - your framing this as me going for a "win" or as about "protecting the little guy" is the wrong framework. The PBCF article was created by someone passionate about that subject; an AfD determined that PBCF doesn't meet the criteria of the NOTABILITY policy at this time and the article should be merged/redirected; I implemented that. He was unhappy with the AfD outcome; you were very unhappy with it and some drama ensued; I dealt with you and him as compassionately as I could. This was all very normal stuff in this huge and strange world of Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Message received, same in response vis-a-vis willingness to Talk (prior judgments already softening), but on the core issues we must agree to disagree. While I concede that the WP process aspects have always been formally on your side, I stand by the fact that your strong a priori feelings regarding COI and referencing (both of which I share) set you off in the direction of an outcome (win) that never had more than a two editor excess in your corner, which reduced to one as soon as I arrived (granted, after the merger discussion had ended). So, however much you are correct vis-a-vis the propriety of the process was followed, all this is legalism—I stand by the conclusion that important aspects of the spirit of wikipedia rules (and the more general spirit of principles that should govern peaceable human interactions) were not followed. I would add that I believe that this is one reason—alongside not wanting the hassle of entering into a conflict—that Doc, et al., said they could see both sides, and stayed out. Bottom line, myriads of more poorly sourced articles on less notable subjects persist, and those wanting encyclopedic information (here, on a clearly important UK medical charity), and only focused disease information in disease articles have had a troubling precedent set. Mostly, though, the point of writing was to say, no question, you had Jrfw51 on the letter of the law. But that what was lost was far more than what was won. And no, sorry, a thousand times no—there is no aspect of life, anywhere, anytime, where "'protecting the little guy' is the wrong framework." The adage "whatsoever we do, to the least…" is a benchmark, not just a quaint aphorism or dated sentiment—rather it is a hard-edged standard applicable to all aspects of life: personal, professional, and in public service (last applying here). The late Prof Lewis of Cambridge, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and one-time Chair of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge, suggested in a children's book that we would ultimately see revisited, "tear for tear, throb for throb, blood for blood" all that we had done to these least (The Horse and His Boy, p. 228, HarperCollins, 2005 [1954]). Odd those this might seem and sound, I am more of that mind than the opposite, which stovepipes what might be considered suitable behaviour in each context, following rule rather than spirit. Cheers, Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

As I am the subject of this I must comment although I have tried to move on from personal attacks and to comment on the edits rather than a perception of personality. I am not an advocate for the PBC Foundation although of course I felt ownership of an article I had created. My first involvement with the Primary biliary cirrhosis Name change initiative was here [8] to correct over-zealous "advocacy" editing by perhaps a true IP advocate. When I created the PBC Foundation page, I made the mistake in following the format of other patient support groups with lots from their website for references. Now in my off-WP work I was somewhat aware of the forth-coming changes, and I suppose this then became a COI although this has never been a very important issue to me. It is difficult to reconcile an expertise with a COI for neutral editing -- as you recognise. So I will wait until good sources meeting appropriate standards are available. I was inexperienced in WP disputes (not having come across this in my 400 edits -- maybe a week's work for you) but I have learnt a lot about good and bad manners in WP. It is too easy to snap and not assume good faith. I suspect we are all too old to accept we can lose arguments or change our ways but we need to see why other editors see their edits as important. Now I have wasted enough time on this and will move on. Let's hope we can work together in future to add what we see as important to the encyclopedia. Jrfw51 (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You are not the subject. Le Prof was telling me that i did badly, and I am telling him that he is wrong, and he actually did badly. You are just part of the substrate of that discussion. But thanks for clarifying your position: I meant it when I praised you for keeping your head through all that! Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Archana Gupta Updating the name of the profile. wrong spelled

why the heck now the name is changed again?? already provided a valid verified reference for it Archana Gupta there was no spelling mistake in the name. And why you still considering all the references which doesn't even exist now. the refrence provided is the recent from a verified source from 2015. please visit all the refrences in the page most of them don't exist and are very old. Hence asking you to consider this update to the name rather than considering it as wrong spelled Rajeevsao (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

use the article talk page - if you read it you will see there is already a discussion there waiting for your response. and i fixed all the references the last time you came around. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hello. I hope you are doing fine. I have one question: How can I get access to HighBeam Research? There are a lot of coverage I could use from there, but it is restricted for me since I need login information. Thanks you and cheers! --BiH (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi - see Wikipedia:HighBeam. Please also see the note I left on your Talk page about your COI disclosure, and please reply there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

3d printing

Hi Jytdog, I like the no nonsense clean up but I wonder if the 16um minimum thickness could or should stay here by being re-worded without the promotional element given that it is cited and also relevant in that particular context. Regards. CV9933 (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd be OK with that - feel free. Thanks for talking! Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair. Because you participated in the deletion discussion or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GregJackP Boomer! 00:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

edits

hi Jytdog, I do appreciate your concern, but what you wrote on my talk page was not really necessary, as Jeffro77 and I DID actually come to collaboration, and I came to agree with his last edits on this. The "edit warring" DID stop. I accepted his final edits and modifications on this matter. As I generally do overall with Jeffro77's edits. It's ok. Also, your removing the wording in the lede was unwarranted as it was the "stable version". That was the valid sourced and "stable" lede wording for a long time. No warrant to remove. So I'm restoring. (Not even sure why you removed it, since it's clearly referenced and correctly worded.) But you should not be saying the things you said on my page. I did not break "3RR" and frankly, you're a bit out of line and over-reacting. Jeffor77 and I did come to working and final collaboration on this, if you carefully analyze all of the edit history and comments etc. Regards. `Gabby Merger (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Work it out on the article talk page. please. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that the wording that you removed from the lede was the valid sourced and "stable" lede wording for a long time. No warrant to remove. Even Jeffro77 accepted and had no problem with the lede and wording there. (Not even sure why you removed it, since it's clearly referenced and correctly worded.) Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

don't do that. discuss on the article talk page. You are about an inch from getting blocked for edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

What's this "inch away from getting blocked" that you keep saying, as if I violated 3RR or have been horribly "edit-warring"?? I don't appreciate that. Your removing the wording from the lede was unwarranted, and the wording in the lede was NOT even a matter of dispute by Jeffro77 or anyone. That WAS the "stable" lede for a long time. Stop threatening me. YOU are violating Wikipedia policy in assuming BAD faith. And your lack of civility. WP:Civil you're not keeping and I'm not gonna put up with it. I did not violate any Wikipedia policy. But you are in what you're doing and saying now. This "one inch from getting blocked" nonsense is out of line and an over-reaction and uncalled for. Jeffro and I DID come to final agreement and collaboration over this. But YOU decided to butt in and chime this for some reason. Not cool and not necessary. You're assuming bad faith, and how is that respectful? Gabby Merger (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring harms Wikipedia. Stop it. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. For now, and for a while, seeing how things go on here, and what is said and discussed, etc, I won't be dealing with that transliteration matter on this article. Just maybe with general edits, that were never in disagreement, and other things, etc. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

Do you think this journal is a reliable source, given that it has been criticized for having "apparent bias in favor of industries that are subject to governmental health and environmental regulations"? [9] Everymorning (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That letter is dated 2002 - 13 years ago. I really struggle with the kinds of arguments that are made in that letter about "ties" to industry. Surely you have heard all the fuss about Michael Taylor's roles at the FDA and his "ties" to Monsanto? Well here is what the Center for Science in the Public Interest (who organized and sent that 2002 letter) had to say about Taylor in this open letter that they published in 2012.

In any case, we can't address reliability of a source without the content it is meant to support, and the specific article with its authors. But no, I wouldn't chuck an article just because it is published in that journal on account of that 13-year old letter. Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The specific reason I am asking you is because I noticed a paper in this journal cited more than a dozen times on the aspartame article, where I believe you and I interacted once years ago. The reason I know about this journal is that in editing lots of tobacco-related pages here, I found that it has published a number of industry-funded papers arguing that secondhand smoke isn't harmful. Also, the journal's editor is tobacco industry consultant Gio Batta Gori. There is also some more criticism of the journal here.Everymorning (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The strongest argument to not use this journal is that per this it is not indexed by pubmed or medline. Its impact factor and rank are not great either. And the advocacy for big tobacco by the editor is also not a good thing - that is more than just a "tie". We always want to use the highest quality sources we can. I'll have a look at sourcing in the aspartame article. But really, I decry the sloppy "ties" thing, especially with regard to toxicology, on a bunch of levels. Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The journal is MEDLINE indexed, btw. Sounds like it probably is not reliable for surprising text (i.e. passive smoking is not harmful), though probably is OK for uncontroversial material. Yobol (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, thanks Yobol! Jytdog (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Longevity and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagreement

Jytdog, i would like to get along and work with you in a creative tension, yet by my reckoning, i see you engaged in tendentious and disruptive editing practices. The most recent example is your revert of my addition of Monsanto legal cases in the article about Monsanto legal cases, in which you allege that i am edit warring. I don't see how that can even be an accusation there. I find you to have shown a pattern of accusations against me, as well as often unwillingness to engage in very real and genuine dialogue when it really comes down to it in disputes, and it's become a serious hindrance to my ability to do good work on Wikipedia. You've also accused me of bad character and motivations in editing, often, as in this most recent example. I am your colleague and co-editor on Wikipedia, and i wish we could work out differences in dialogue, and to compromise when we must. You think a case should not be mentioned on a page about Monsanto legal cases, and i think it should be mentioned. We have different reckonings. Let's try to express our reasons in calm and direct dialogue. Let's not try to block things using excuses or lawyering bureacratic types of moves. Let's be direct and confront our differences of opinion as adults. We can agree to disagree, but i would like to be feel that i am participating in dialogue with you as an equal, unlike how i often to feel, which is that you are swinging weight as if you're my superior here, as if you're the expert and your word goes, and as if your interpretation of guidelines and policies is the final word. A bit too heavy-handed. It's a reckoning, but i now have months of experience interacting with you, and i find it quite disruptive. I realize that i see the world through my perspective, but even after long consideration of my interactions with you, i still find your behavior too often intractable and not collaborative. I write this message in hopes of still finding a better way to work with you, though at some point i'll need to request dispute resolution or some other remedy to the atmosphere of difficulty of collaboration that i feel as a result of your behaviors. I'd like to get on with doing good work here, but if every edit i make on any page you watch is going to be reverted and then subject of a long and winding discussion that never really focuses or discerns and acknowledges issues clearly, and in good faith, then it's not going to work out. SageRad (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I work within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and I respect them. I will see you on the article Talk page. I advised you here what you should do to make your edits stick. Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I really must disagree with your assertion that you work within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, based on your behavior at Monsanto legal cases. I see an editor engaged in tendentious editing, editing in a specific ideological direction, and using policies when convenient for your cause, and ignoring and misrepresenting policies when that is convenient for your cause. The dialogue there makes this clear. That, and willful lacunae of responses that lead to incomplete dialogue and explcit questions going unanswered, such as "Do you acknowledge that you misrepresented Wikipedia policy as prohibiting inclusion of filed lawsuits until they're completed, and/or now do you acknowledge that this notion is not correct, and that a lawsuit in progress *can* be notable for inclusion in an article?"

I value my ability to edit on Wikipedia, and i have diverse interests. However, editing articles in which you are involved has been a painstakingly difficult process, largely due to the behaviors that i'm calling out here, and others. I would like to edit based on policies and guidelines, and to work in a creative tension with you. I know you have a different perspective on many things than i do, and ideally our perspectives would work together in a creative tension, balancing out articles, and providing reference to different points of view within articles, as is the intent of NPOV guidelines. However, behaviors that appear to be filibustering, wikilawyering, and other delay and obstruction tactics are seriously disrupting my ability to edit, and this seems to be true for other editors as well. This is a community and we must expect behavior with integrity, or the whole project comes apart. SageRad (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your question in quotes misrepresents what I have said, and is a "does your mom know you beat your wife" question. I generally don't answer those. I do understand that you are frustrated that you cannot use Wikipedia for advocacy. I am sorry you are frustrated. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not an excuse. Have integrity. State your case clearly and answer questions honestly. I'm sorry you find it acceptable to be disruptive and make this a difficult place for many other editors, and i'm sorry you wish to characterize me as the problem, and take no responsibility for your own actions. SageRad (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I have stated my questions clearly about the content you want to add. I am sorry you don't understand them; please ask me to clarify whatever part you don't understand. Also, what you are bringing up here are matters related to a content dispute - please discuss content on article Talk pages. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I've answered your questions as honestly and completely as i can. I wrote the note here about an ongoing issue i have been having with your behavior that is disrupting my ability to edit, and taking up a lot of my time. SageRad (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

When I asked why this matters, you replied that the lawsuits are discussed in good sources. You are answering a question about WP:RS but I am asking a question about WP:NPOV. As I wrote to you before, your edits are not sticking because they are bad edits. You have added unsourced content in violation of WP:NOR, badly sourced per WP:RS, and UNDUE content per WP:NPOV. I am unhappy that the articles you have chosen to work on, are ones that I watch, but the poor quality of your editing is not my fault. I have spent a ton of time trying to teach you how to edit better. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Redact

Redact usually means removal, blacking out, or editing to hide content, not addition of content. wiktionary As used here Interesting response. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

see WP:REDACT. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

POV edits and claims

Notice that your removal of content from various GMO related pages appears questionable at best. See for instance here, or here. Wrong or meaningless edit summaries add what appears to be POV pushing. The proper way is to seek consensus first on talk pages before removing content, especially if it has been part of the article for months. Then you made a claim on my talk page recently that i do pro gmo edits, act aggressively or that my edits are advocacy, or that i broke 3RR. I still waiting for you to provide a specific dif for these claims. Notice that these claims amount to intimidation by you, and ignoring my request to provide difs is adding to an overall disruptive pattern.prokaryotes (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You can cherry-pick all day. You have no grasp of the range of my edits, and if you really looked at them you would see I reject changes from POV pushers on all sides on the GMO issues. And I told you - look at every single edit you made in the past day or two. Every one emphasizes negatives of GM or promotes the goodness of organic. Every. Single. One. And I struck the 3RR thing so WP:DROPTHESTICK on that. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Which one in particular, promotes the goodness of organic?? Maybe you confusing me with someone else, i have no idea what you talking about. And you still just make vague claims, and are reluctant to provide any actual difs. prokaryotes (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't even know what you do? this was your one edit to organic stuff. "advocacy group" has been in the lead since 2006. since 2006 Every edit has emphasized the risks of GMO stuff or done things like that. Every one. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? How is this promoting the goodness of organic or emphasized the risks of GMO stuff? There seems to be a disconnect between your claims and the actual content in question. I ask you now again to stop making up untrue claims about my edits.prokaryotes (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

what is the point of changing "advocacy group" to "nonprofit organization"? (that is a real question) Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Because non profit is what the source states, and hence what i wrote in my edit summary.prokaryotes (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Grandia & James (Jim) Hoggan

A user kgrandia is an employee of James Hoggan, a PR exec. He has edited his own page (i just reverted) and created a page for his boss. How do we proceed? Capitalismojo (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice catch! First thing is to approach them on their talk page and inform them about our COI guideline. Often when people learn about it they are happy to comply and there is no need for further drama. If they are unresponsive or won't agree, you can post at COIN. I can do it for you, if you like. If you want an example, you can see here - that editor has done half of what I asked (disclosed on their user page) but hasn't actually replied yet and I will be following up with them soon). There you go! Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

connected contributor tags

Hi Jytdog,

I see the purpose of connected contributor tags in instances when the COI contributor has created an article or made a significant change to it. For the IPs tagged on Monsanto legal cases, they were immediately reverted, and had no impact on the article. We both know Monsanto and related articles attract a range of advocacy editors including COI editors, and I see no reason to focus on IPs that made 1-2 low-quality edits 4+ months ago. The removal of law firm sites as a reference for legal cases is a well-established precedent. Could you explain how you think these tags benefit the article?Dialectric (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is an example. There is an article that the community tried twice to delete and each time failed. After I went through and identified the extent of COI editing with these tags, that article was deleted in a heartbeat. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_National_Society_of_Leadership_and_Success_(3rd_nomination). That is just one example, and one way the tags are useful. I don't know to what extent there will be future COi editing on that article (and I doubt we will ever seek to delete it), but the tags are useful for seeing what has gone on, on the COI front. I don't think the cc tags should ever be deleted from any article - they are included in the headers so that they endure and are not archived. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Motion: Longevity

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to longevity, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Longevity

Intralesional therapy with IL-2

Intratumoral therapy with IL-2

Please don't delete this section. Intralesional IL-2 is part of the new NCCN - Evidence-Based Cancer Guidelines for the treatment of melanoma. I added additional references including the guideline recommendations. THE National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) is the highest authority for cancer treatment recommendations. This section is not "SPAM" the reference that you have deleted from more than one Wikipage is the HIGHEST downloaded article of the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, which is the most prestigious of all of the clinical dermatology journals.

http://www.jaad.org clinic on "MOST READ" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.79.255.150 (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Jytdog. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Question about abandoned drug category

I noticed you re-added the "abandoned drug" category to the page on the ill-fated weight loss drug 2,4-DNP - From my current understanding 2,4-DNP was sold as a RX only medication (just like another ill-fated medication of yesteryear, LSD) and was than withdrawn due to side effects - Thus it wasn't really "abandoned" so so speak, it was sold and then pulled due to the high fevers and overdosing and whatnot. A similar sort of thing happened with LSD, People were prescribed it and it got out of control. If this is correct - Why is DNP the only ill-fated drug of yesteryear listed in this category? - Mfernflower

hmm OK the "withdrawn drugs" category would be better. I just made that change. OK? Jytdog (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

NNDB

Regarding Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 21#Template:NNDB, I don't know if you have seen that this was discussed previously. See 1) Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 13#Template:Nndb name, 2) Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 13#Template:Nndb name, and 2) Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 29#Template:Nndb name. Cheers! - Location (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Oy, I didn't. Jytdog (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Bullying

I wish to record that I regard your behaviour towards me as bullying. You flagrantly disregard Wikipedia policies and procedures and abuse your position by making threats. You make no attempt to enter into discussion about concerns you may have about articles, but resort immediately to a combination of deletion and intimidation. Rathfelder (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If you keep making articles that get deleted for being promotional and that contain COPYVIO, you are going to get blocked. Me telling you that, is not bullying you - it is telling you how things work here. Feel free to ignore me; I am trying to help you. What you are "recording" here is WP:IDHT. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

I just realized I never posted a proper thank you for your help on the Cerner Wikipedia article. So, thank you! JNorman704 (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

you are welcome. did we finish/ Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

33R Edit warring

Your recent editing history 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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.prokaryotes (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this template cites WP:BRD. You made the first change; when I reverted you should have gone to discussion. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Brian Boxer Wachler

With all due respect, he is certainly an academic as is evident from his long record of peer-reviewed papers. [10] Note that his middle initial is "S". Everymorning (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

academics have academic appointments. as far as i can see he has none. he is obviously a relentless self-promoter. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I think that this is about to go to ArbCom. In fact, I am thinking of making the request myself. I am very sure that they will accept it. Please let me suggest that you pull together as many diffs as you can of your own edits, in which you can reasonably be considered to be presenting GMOs in a non-positive light or presenting critics of GMOs in a non-negative light. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

New York Times

I was looking at the New York Times homepage today and I saw this story. I was wondering what your opinion was on it. Everymorning (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)An interesting twist on the usual "big bad industry vs the people" trope, when it is actually two different industries playing the same game for opposite results....Yobol (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Nature reported on the story about Folta a while ago. I didn't know that Benbrook accepted money from organic food companies; that was news to me. All these guys should be much better about making disclosures.

I think the thing to keep in mind from all that is the following quote "“What industry does is when they find people saying things they like, they make it possible for your voice to be heard in more places and more loudly." It isn't reasonable to me, to call Benbrook an organics zombie or Folta a Monsanto zombie - both of those people came to their own conclusions based on who they are, their values, and the science they look at, and industry came to them, and gave them money and support to amplify their voices, and things get tangled from there. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Just as a heads up, I created Kevin Folta earlier today, in case you want to edit it given your interest in GM stuff. Everymorning (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw it already, but thanks for the heads up. So what do you think about the stuff reported in the NYT piece? Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I was surprised when I read the part that says "the biotech industry has published dozens of articles, under the names of prominent academics, that in some cases were drafted by industry consultants." That seems like something very suspicious, and although I don't know much about the subject, I suspect that this may be unacceptable medical ghostwriting. Everymorning (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, I agree that there is a consensus that GMOs are no more dangerous than non-GMO food, so I don't really have a problem with most of the biotech industry's activities described in the story. In contrast, if the tobacco industry was doing it (and they did for years), that would be another matter because the consensus is against the tobacco industry in much the same way it is in favor of the biotech industry. Everymorning (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes that was surprising to me. I wish they had said more about that. I would like to know which ones! Jytdog (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove my name and the accusation.

You have mentioned me in a section on AN/I. I am asking you to remove or strike it as it is casting WP:ASPERSIONS. I am not the subject of your dispute. While we may disagree on a lot of things, that disagreement is not up to what your comment suggests. In fact I support all PAG. That I see them violated where you dont, or that I believe a punishment should be less is not the same as being anti. AlbinoFerret 15:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

As we have discussed before, the pattern of your commenting at drama board actions is very clear. And indeed you have been true to form on this one here and here where you are not considering the merits at all, but throwing up smoke. If you choose to make an issue of this, the diffs I will bring will show beyond any doubt that the behavior I describe is accurate. It will be a big waste of the community's time. Review your own contribs if you don't believe me - the pattern is very, very clear. Nearly always opposed to WP:MED editors/editing, and throwing up distractions to protect editors who are doing bad stuff when it comes to FRINGEy topics or health content (the pattern of DrChrissy seeking to expand conflict with me is so, so clear) Literally, never once have I seen you even acknowledge the merits of a case related to FRINGEY/altmed/opposed-to-mainstream health editing. You have learned the gamesmanship of dramaboards here pretty well. Everybody is free to bring their POV to drama boards, but after a while it becomes clear where you are coming from, especially when someone is as consistent as you are. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Your choice, I asked nicely. Your diffs show me addressing PAG, though not in the way you would like. Thats a disagreement, not being anti anything. You have not proved anything, and WP:ASPERSIONS comes from an Arbcom decision. I would suggest following it and removing your comment or striking it. AlbinoFerret 16:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a day for gathering diffs, and it appears I am going to need them eventually anyway, since you continue to plow ahead with this at ANI.

• Your topic ban started on March 16th.
• here are all your contribs at ANI since then; about 325 contribs

• 1 contribs on a child molestation accusation; unrelated
• 5 contribs on bitcoin, unrelated
• 2 contribs on 'CANVASS by User:Green_Cardamom" unrelated
• 4 contribs on the thing between me and DrChrissy and big surprise, against me (I was in the wrong there). Related but OK.
• 3 contribs on Tornheim stuff. related' sniping; befogging the issue by calling it a content dispute when it is about a pattern of advocacy (something I had expected you to be attuned to due to your favoring of the COI Duck/Advocacy duck essays); again calling advocacy issues just a "content dispute"
• 2 contribs on "Topic ban User:Chiayi77 for admitted WP:COI reported by NewsAndEventsGuy" -unrelated
• 1 contrib on "retired prof" about religion unrelated
• 1 contrib on user soapboxing (userpage use, politics) unrelated
• 1 contrib on block proposal for editor with CIR issues (mishae) unrelated
• 3 contribs on DrChrissyy's bogus (snow closed) ANI over scrambler. related opposing MED editors; adding to that; more attacking offtopic dramah
• 3 contribs on the ANI against me about the catholic guy at COIN brought by IP that was snow closed. unrelated (and as this is not MED, you did the sensible thing and supported me)
• 14 contribs on iban b/n Alansohn and Magnolia677 about NJ geography 'unrelated
• 1 contribs on freeatlastchitchat (religion, rape jihad) 'unrelated
• 7 contribs on doors22 related at first nicely nuanced</front> dif, but then here you fell off the ladder and denied that there was a serious SPA/advocacy issue with Doors. The evidence I presented was overwhelmingly clear that the guy was a SPA here to advocate for one thing and your claim that "I have also said before that in a battleground everyone is at fault." What the heck do you call it when someone comes to WP with a very strong agenda and stirs up all kinds of crap with editors trying to keep things NPOV? That is a real question. I don't understand how you can be so clueless about the trouble caused by editors who are NOTHERE - who are here to SOAPBOX - again especially in light of your support for the Advocacy Duck essay. I am unable to make sense of that stance outside you having a carrying a grudge against MED. This was where I really became aware of the issue, AlbinoFerret. Which I wrote there, and you responded to.
• 3 contribs about Hijirri. religion. unrelated'
• 13 contribs on FreeatlastChitchat/Pax redux. 'unrelated
• 11 contribs on croatia stuff unrelated
• 1 contrib on simon trewe is uncivil (music_ unrelated
• 1 contrib on "Closure needed at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Exceptions_to_Small_Caps" unrelated
• 11 more on catlflap (scattered, not adjacent) unrelated
• 3 more on rape jihad 'unrelated
• 4 contribs atsme's ANI against me related to her essay, which was snow-closed. related as her essay stemmed from her unhappiness with MED. excuse her; again; sniping; and one cob move.
• 1 contrib on User:Phill24th page ownership, abuse of warning system unrelated
• 12 contribs on DrChrissy topic ban from acupuncture that resulted in topic ban. related distraction; opposing, distraction continued, dismiss as content dispute; after being called out by Zad for bias, you deny and again; more offtopic drama; and again claim you are objective. and again, that was closed with a topic ban. Later, support narrowing (3 diffs)
• 4 more on hijirri (curtisnab, TH1980) unrelated
• 1 on History of the WWE - Long-running edit war) unrelated
• 1 on Human_Chlorophyll and Talk:Jesus unrelated

That brings me from March 16 to May 19th, and is 114 contibs. (I am stopping now because I am sick of this)

Now breaking that down to related and unrelated:

unrelated

• 1 contribs on a child molestation accusation; unrelated
• 5 contribs on bitcoin, unrelated
• 2 contribs on 'CANVASS by User:Green_Cardamom" unrelated
• 2 contribs on "Topic ban User:Chiayi77 for admitted WP:COI reported by NewsAndEventsGuy" -unrelated
• 1 contrib on "retired prof" about religion unrelated
• 1 contrib on user soapboxing (userpage use, politics) unrelated
• 1 contrib on block proposal for editor with CIR issues (mishae) unrelated
• 3 contribs on the ANI against me about the catholic guy at COIN brought by IP that was snow closed. unrelated (and as this is not MED, you did the sensible thing and supported me)
• 14 contribs on iban b/n Alansohn and Magnolia677 about NJ geography 'unrelated
• 1 contribs on freeatlastchitchat (religion, rape jihad) 'unrelated
• 3 contribs about Hijirri. religion. unrelated'
• 13 contribs on FreeatlastChitchat/Pax redux. 'unrelated
• 11 contribs on croatia stuff unrelated
• 1 contrib on simon trewe is uncivil (music_ unrelated
• 1 contrib on "Closure needed at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Exceptions_to_Small_Caps" unrelated
• 11 more on catlflap (scattered, not adjacent) unrelated
• 3 more on rape jihad 'unrelated
• 1 contrib on User:Phill24th page ownership, abuse of warning system unrelated
• 4 more on hijirri (curtisnab, TH1980) unrelated
• 1 on History of the WWE - Long-running edit war) unrelated
• 1 on Human_Chlorophyll and Talk:Jesus unrelated

related

• 4 contribs on the thing between me and DrChrissy and big surprise, against me (I was in the wrong there). Related but OK.
• 3 contribs on Tornheim stuff. related' sniping; befogging the issue by calling it a content dispute when it is about a pattern of advocacy (something I had expected you to be attuned to due to your favoring of the COI Duck/Advocacy duck essays); again calling advocacy issues just a "content dispute"
• 3 contribs on DrChrissyy's bogus (snow closed) ANI over scrambler. related opposing MED editors; adding to that; more attacking offtopic drama
• 7 contribs on doors22 related at first nicely nuanced</front> dif, but then here you fell off the ladder and denied that there was a serious SPA/advocacy issue with Doors. The evidence I presented was overwhelmingly clear that the guy was a SPA here to advocate for one thing and your claim that "I have also said before that in a battleground everyone is at fault." What do you call it when someone comes to WP with a very strong agenda and stirs up all kinds of crap with editors trying to keep things NPOV? That is a real question. I don't understand how you can be so unable to see the trouble caused by editors who are NOTHERE - who are here to SOAPBOX - again especially in light of your support for the Advocacy Duck essay. I am unable to make sense of that stance outside you having a carrying a grudge against MED. This was where I really became aware of the issue, AlbinoFerret. Which I wrote there, and you responded to.
• 4 contribs on atsme's ANI against me related to complications with moving her essay to mainspace, which was snow-closed. related as her essay stemmed from her unhappiness with MED. excuse her; again; sniping; and one cob move.
• 12 contribs on DrChrissy topic ban from acupuncture that resulted in topic ban. related distraction; opposing, distraction continued, dismiss as content dispute; after being called out by Zad for bias, you deny and again; more offtopic drama; and again claim you are objective. and again, that was closed with a topic ban. Later, support narrowing (3 diffs)

OK, so there are 33 contibs on 6 matters. Do you see how you consistently behave differently on the related things? Every time supporting FRINGEy actors - you don't get into all the sniping, distracting behavior in unrelated threads, and really importantly, you consistently end up on the side opposed to mainstream editors on related things. If you don't find this compelling I will go and finish, but the pattern stays true. Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

And note that the above is only about ANI. The pattern remains true at other boards and Talk pages. When it comes to health or WP:MED you demonstrate a single stance, which seems to me, to be more about your grudge than any objective analysis of the issues under consideration - if it were, how could you so consistently take a stance opposite WP:MED? Again I know the experience that led up to your topic ban was very frustrating for you, but carrying that kind of grudge around is just...blech. If you believe you have actually supported mainstream health positions and WP:MED efforts to keep Wikipedia NPOV and well-sourced on any drama board, I am very open to seeing diffs (several of them) Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

What you have is your own bias speaking out loud and reading between the lines looking for something that isnt there. I still suggest you strike the accusations and stop the ABF posts. If they continue I will move forward seeking sanctions against you. This seems to be a pattern, one where proof shouldnt be hard to find. AlbinoFerret 16:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I again invite you to provide diffs where you have supported WP:MED in noticeboard discussions. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I dont have any desire to look, I dont have to convince you or anyone else, and it doesnt make a difference if I supported one policy or the other. But one of your examples is an instance. Doors22. I recommended a 6 months topic ban. Just because its not what you wanted to happen doesnt make it what you think it could possibly, might be, if looked at through your own shaded glasses and cocked at an angle. The other problem with what your doing is your reading between the lines and looking for things that meet your pre conceived "problem". Your attributing non medrs discussions like AVDucks to Medrs. Again out of your own perception of what the problem was. As Adjwilley poined out, do this on yourself as an outsider looking in, if you can. See where it leads you. Im done, as you have said before to others, you will do as you will do. But if you post more ABF posts, its likely to come back and bite you. AlbinoFerret 19:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Relaying a concern

Jytdog, DrC is concerned that you're commenting about him above, and he can't respond because you've banned him from your talk page. Please stop talking about him and posting on his page. This whole issue between you and him, and you and several others, is going to blow up if it continues. I think taking it to ArbCom would not be in your interests (or in anyone else's), so you'd be doing everyone a favour if you could find a way to tone things down significantly. Sarah ^(talk) 17:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for relaying the message and for your thoughts. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It would help if you were to stop the personal attacks (removing them later doesn't undo them), and stop posting about the same issue in multiple venues, including by email.

Also, I think it would help if you were to re-open the COIN about yourself, or take some of the affected pages off your watchlist. Much of the tension stems from people believing that you're editing with a COI, and it's the perception (regardless of the facts) that is causing the problem. If you were willing to reduce those concerns (per WP:APPARENTCOI), I think it would be much appreciated. I'm sorry, I know you dislike this topic, but it's unlikely to go away unless you help it on its way. Sarah ^(talk) 19:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I have already gone way over and beyond what is required in Wikipedia to deal with WP:APPARENTCOI. If people persist in assuming bad faith about me after all that, they are the ones violating WP policy. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No one can require you to do this, so it's entirely up to you. But I don't think the last discussion clarified anything. If you were willing to disclose to someone who is very familiar with the COI guideline and familiar with opposing COI editing (someone you trust – Doc James comes to mind), it would leave less room for doubt.

The alternative is to take some of the pages off your watchlist, not necessarily forever, but for a few months to place some distance between you and those topics and companies. I know this is uncomfortable for you, so I'll leave it there. Please feel free to archive/remove this discussion. Sarah ^(talk) 19:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

As I have written to you before, instead of telling the people who hound me to back off (which you have never done even when they wrote nasty things on your own Talk page and I called your attention to it) you keep asking more of me. This is disappointing for someone who used to defend people from hounding, and in my view is blaming the victim as I have said to you before. I have disclosed my real life identity to at least three admins here, all of whom are opposed to COI editing. If you had even once told any of my hounders to back off, or even had responded to me when I had asked you about that in the past, I would have been willing to reveal it to you. As it is, I would not trust you with that information. Your distrust of me has earned my distrust of you. So it goes. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict before the last two edits) Sarah, please see the ongoing discussion "Faith" on my talk page. IMO the ability of an editor to repeatedly proclaim that they have been Wikipedia-vetted for COI as a result of a conversation with another editor in which the question of COI did not even come up is a big problem here. As the top editor of all or at least most of the Monsanto related articles, even including related articles such as Precautionary principle, I have to wonder what would happen if an outside journalist/investigator would look into possible Monsanto/Wikipedia bias. I think we'd all end up looking very bad. This problem needs some discussion, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Gandy, again you rankly distort the discussion I had with the oversighter, as I described it. Please stay off my talk page. As I wrote, I am steering clear of you and I ask the same. And I would be happy to walk any journalist through all my edits on the GMO articles and my experience here. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, you might find it interesting to read the oldest archive of my user talk; if you look between some lines, you will get a feel for some context about how to think about some of this. It's not worth feeling too concerned about refuting what other editors are telling you here. Please don't let it get you down. But please do use it as a gauge of what is likely to come at you from other editors in the (inevitable) event of a full ArbCom case. It's how some users, certainly not all, see you and will say that they see you. It's not something to refute now, but it is something to prepare to refute later.

Some incredibly sage advice I've seen from editors who have been here even longer than I have is to comment, not for the benefit of the editor who is disagreeing with you (because you probably won't convince them anyway), but for other, uninvolved editors, who will later judge the exchange.

I know that you have said a couple of times recently that you would rather not have to deal with a full ArbCom case. I want to tell you that I think that you are very likely to get a full case whether you want it or not. I tentatively plan to file the request for clarification or amendment tomorrow. But I think that it's very possible that the response will be, instead, to insist on a full case. I said earlier in your talk that you need to gather diffs to show that you are NPOV, not POV. Like it or not, you need to get ready. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

i hear you. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For being extremely active in the COI area and related discussion. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration request notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO articles 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 in 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, Looie496 (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey Jytdog, I don't think I ever properly thanked you for your edit to AIG, so please accept this belated gratitude. After some time away from Wikipedia, I actually just started working with Memorial Sloan Kettering to improve their page, and saw you'd made some positive changes, especially regarding the whole COI debacle. My first priority with them is to clean that up (as I think only two of the COI editors actually still work at MSK), but following that, I think further improvements can be made in terms of content and structure. If you've got the time, would you be interested in collaborating to polish up the article?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I responded there. My apologies for the delay.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverts on Governance

Hi, you have reverted my edits of Governance [see here] , there is neither any article nor any section regarding Bad governance, So I have inserted it . so Kindly do revert back to my edits or create a article for Bad Governance.--Jogi 007 (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You used a source that is not reliable. Please find better sources. I don't object to content on bad governance at all. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests

Hi, Jytdog. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO articles. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi L235 - I trimmed this down to about 625 words. In the past you have granted some slack on the 500 word limit. Is that possible here? Thx. Jytdog (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

If it's not, your current count is 626 words, or 562 (if you exclude "a", "an", and "the" which is traditionally allowed). I know it's tough to get down to 500 words when each of numerous detractors is also allowed 500 words, but I wouldn't give anyone any slack at all in criticizing you for your response. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that you have a lot more involvement than most people, have a lot of comments directed at you and have made an effort to trim, I'm happy to give you up to 650 words for the GMO case request. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Fredric Alan Maxwell

Hi Jytdog, I'm here because Fred hails from the Vietnam era and needs someone (me) with slightly better proficiency at learning and using this interface to correct/update/verify/cite the content removed from his page. I see you reverted. I'm reverting back, I think you'll like the edits I've otherwise made, and have for the time being removed the third paragraph that might need better citations. There should be no need to remove any of the links, they are all verified as of 15 minutes ago. Blevenberg (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You left a duplicate message on your talk page. I replied there. Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This is just getting silly now. Deletion? Really? You'll hate the comment I left there. Also, what's up really with the policy being for "notable" authors? I think that's kind of against the whole idea of the free encyclopedia, no? Also - I still don't see what was wrong at all with my edits? I fixed the links and I removed the paragraph without a citation. ??" Blevenberg (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Coming to Wikipedia to mock it, makes no sense. If you want to be here, respect this place enough to figure out the rules and play by them. Otherwise, stay off my page. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Maxwell affair

Thanks for stepping up with the COI work on this matter; it's very helpful in a situation like this where they were convinced I was out to get them. Vrac (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

it is hard when content and COI stuff get entangled. I was happy to help. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)r

Deleting disclosures

For future reference re: this, we shouldn't delete pages where disclosures have been made, or drafts by paid editors in user space, etc. These may be added as links to {{connected contributor (paid)}}, so it's best to leave them blue. Sarah ^(talk) 23:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand why I nominated that page for deletion. Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw your rationale, but the point remains that deleting the page would delete the disclosure. Sarah ^(talk) 00:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't agree and you have no idea of what I was trying to accomplish in working with that particular editor. Instead of asking you come here and just assert things that are banal - I don't even know how to respond, really. If you have no interest in actually understanding me or working with me, please just steer clear of me. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Your comment on Glyphosate talk page

Re: [11], can you please explain your statement that moving content from the sandbox to article space is COPYVIO? I don't think that's correct. The appearance is you're displaying unreasonable OWNership over the article by making outlandish policy arguments - but maybe I missed something? Thanks. Minor4th 20:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

hey

[12] ...in other words don't let people get to you, ..oz..--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Remember, the absolute worst case scenario is a full, permanent ban from Wikipedia, and that's VERY unlikely. And even if that does happen, it's just Wikipedia. In the grand scheme of life, it's really not that important. I can understand the frustration, though, given the escalating animosity on all sides and that, in your and your supporters' views, you're being punished for enforcing WP policies against a tidal wave of unscientific dogma. There have been mistakes on ALL sides here, and I have confidence the ArbCom will bring that to light. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Abuse of COIN

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case# 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, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 02:01, 12 July 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 DrChrissy (talk • contribs) 20:04, 1 September 2015‎ (UTC)

PBC name change

Here you go again with your views on what is and isn't advocacy. Is this your OR?

Are you an expert in this field of hepatology? Have you read the articles?[13] The same article is published in Hepatology, Gut, J Hepatol (and others to come) representing the editors' acceptance of the change. The article in Can J Gastro Hep is a separate editorial. The cited J Hepatol article is another view separate to the consensus editorial by the leaders in this field to give a NPOV.

This may have started with advocacy but they have achieved what they wanted and this is now accepted by the professional experts [14] and the leading hepatology journals. "Thus, we sincerely call on all medical professionals and all patients and their families and friends worldwide to use from this moment on the name ‘primary biliary cholangitis’ for the disease known by its abbreviation PBC!"

I think your failure to consider views of others is causing major issues -- perhaps you should revert this. At least this change should have been discussed on the Talk page rather than just reverted. Jrfw51 (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I had the same thought when I saw your edit. Funny, that! Two questions: Why will you not wait until the name is actually adopted? And really importantly - why are you quoting an advocacy group to me? Please do answer both. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

When is the name "actually adopted"? Maybe when it is in ICD10? -- or ICD11, now but that will be years. When it is is a respected textbook (again not for many years). However there are many medical terms not in ICD10, which are recognised by those in the field, and are in WP. I can quote those if you like. I realise now I am at home that unlike me at work you may not have had access to the actual literature that has been cited: let me know if that is the case and we may be able to work together on this so you can see this more easily. We know the patient "advocacy" groups want this name change, but the important professional groups have approved it "The proposal for a name change of primary biliary cirrhosis to ‘primary biliary cholangitis’ was approved by the EASL Governing Board in November 2014, by the AASLD Governing Board in April 2015 and by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Governing Board in July 2015." quoted form the Gut Leading Article. The Editors/Editorial Boards of major high impact journals publishing in the field of hepatology (Hepatology, J Hepatol, Gut and more to come) collaborated to all publish the same or similar article from leading researchers in PBC indicating that they (researchers and journals) had accepted the name change. The quotation above is from this Gut article. So I am not quoting an "advocacy group" at you. Yes this began as advocacy but is now mainstream. This issue in WP does not affect people's health, does not involve big business and if it becomes a sidenote in history when the disease is renamed again if and when a causative agent is found, so what. WP is full of old nomenclature and alternatives. Let's try and have this article be up to date. Can I have your POV rather than just questions. Jrfw51 (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You write, "The Editors/Editorial Boards of major high impact journals publishing in the field of hepatology (Hepatology, J Hepatol, Gut and more to come) collaborated to all publish the same or similar article from leading researchers in PBC indicating that they (researchers and journals) had accepted the name change." But the citations you have given don't seem to show that. How can we verify it? Wouldn't a journal use an editorial for this purpose rather than a letter to the editor? Looie496 (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Even if you don't have full access, you see on the Hepatology login page [15] "Editor's note: This article is being published jointly in American Journal of Gastroenterology, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Clinics and Research in Hepatology and Gastroenterology, Digestive and Liver disease, Gastroenterology, Gut, Hepatology and Journal of Hepatology." Jrfw51 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The letter is clear on what constitutes the actual name change, right? It says "What are the next steps? The World Health Organization (WHO) is asking medical professionals for the first time to help in the revision process of the diagnosis and symptom codes (International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision, ICD-11). The medical representatives of the ‘‘Name Change Initiative for PBC’’—with support of the international primary biliary cirrhosis patient groups—will take responsibility to submit the joint proposal of international experts around the world for the name ‘primary biliary cholangitis.’" Right after that, the authors of the letter make the argument as to why the new name should be adopted. It has not been adopted yet. The proposal may fail. What is your big hurry? There is no deadline here. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The Leading Article in Gut (not letter) is clear. ICD11 is one step to complete the process -- although it may be that WP will be later! After discussing ICD11, the authors reviewed some of the difficulty of using this new name -- the case for it was made before. They conclude, as I quoted in my first post, "Thus, we sincerely call on all medical professionals and all patients and their families and friends worldwide to use from this moment on the name ‘primary biliary cholangitis’ for the disease known by its abbreviation PBC." There is no hurry but why not document what is going on? This is Society and Culture. The lead paragraph is now incorrect as the term is in the scientific literature. And explaining the name change in the main text as I tried today is not controversial medical information; it needs it's own section rather than sitting in the support groups as it is wider than that. Please consider reverting where you see fit if you can. You will undoubtedly need to be convinced to the highest standard. But I'm sure it can wait a couple of years for ICD11. Jrfw51 (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This is what advocates since time immemorial have done - they work for change, and make speeches and write things that urge everyone to get on board and make the change happen, from this moment on. Yes. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy. Too many people mistake it for one which is why SOAPBOX has its own section in What Wikipedia is Not. Jytdog (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

These are the leaders of the hepatology profession in America and Europe (and importantly the patients.) But you see this as ADVOCACY (and why NOTNEWS?) -- you will have your own POV and we know how that gets perceived. Please change the lead as this term has now appeared in the scientific literature. Jrfw51 (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Casein

I noticed some medref-related problems at casein and saw in the history of the article that you have addressed some of these types of concerns in the article before. An anonymous editor has challenged my addition of the {{medref}} tag (and, apparently, accuses me of being part of the "dairy farm lobby" that controls Wikipedia). Would you mind taking a look again and seeing what you think about the current state of the article? Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. Deli nk (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but this was a bad idea

I still have the arb requests page on my watchlist, waiting for something to actually happen in the GMO case. I just noticed GregJackP posted there, linking to this which you posted on his talk page. Now, I stuck my nose in at ANI about the article business because I agree that it is really important that BLPs not become places to carry on disputes with their subjects. And I don't think we've really interacted very much, but I appreciate your efforts in GMOs and alt-med and various other niches where POV-pushing and cluelessness are common; I just don't have the patience for it. But I'm here because that post is really unnecessary and comes across as mean-spirited gravedancing. Disappointing to see from someone who talks a lot about not commenting on other contributors. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog, GregJackP asked you to not post on his talk page. Not only did you disregard that, but the message that you left was just totally below par. So I strongly urge you to not do that again, or I or someone else will probably block you, though I am loath to do so. If you've given this some thought, and you have something to say to GregJackP, you can do it here and ping him. But please do not go back to that talk page again. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that you both see my comment as gravedancing. I don't see it that way and I think you missed the part about acknowledging mistakes (and staying, as opposed to leaving). But I didn't see this til now; I commented once more but will not comment again. Jytdog (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought about this more and I hear you both; it was bad taste for me to post there at all. I should have exercised self restraint and didn't. Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I find it hard to understand how you didn't see the diff/read the comment until after you posted there the second time, after Greg's comment. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, and I'm too late to make a preventative block, though I've rarely been closer to making a punitive block than I am now. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, it actually kind of doesn't matter whether you saw these messages before your second post. There's no point in beating a dead horse, so this will be my last comment about the issue, but one thing needs to be said: that was more than "bad taste" and a lack of self-restraint; that was an appallingly disrespectful thing to say to someone. If I had been awake to see that post when it was made you would have been the owner of my second-ever block of an established user. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I am saddened to say this, but I looked into what happened, and I fully agree with Opabinia regalis and Drmies. It was a bad idea, and the worst possible time to have done it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• i hear you all. This is me. Two of you know me some. I don't believe any of you understand the ugliness of the way gregjackp and his meat puppet have treated me. With the exception of exactly one - exactly one - set of interactions - GregJackP treated me like dogshit, and sought out opportunities to treat me like shit in articles and drama boards. His behavior and that of his meatpuppet have been appalling and it is galling to me that after he actually got caught doing this to someone else (RJensen) he would drama-queen fake-resign, never acknowledging his behavior or being held accountable for it and people would beg him to come back. That is almost too much for me to bear; I drafted much harsher things. And Drmies i never lie. When I say I didn't see the note here before i posted there, that means I didn't see it. I didn't click GregJackP's link. Jytdog (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

But that is all about him, and not about me. And yes above all, I should not have posted on his Talk page when he had told me not to, and certainly not the 2nd time. As for the content, should not have written anything at all. Jytdog (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

COI of user Rajsunder30

Hi

I'm a new page patroller and I came across this user User:Rajsunder30 who created this article Major asha ram tyagi. The problem is that the user mentioned this in the end of the article: "Contributed by Saheed Major Asha Ram Tyagi Foundation, Written as per Information provided by Major Sahab’s Nephew Shri Raj Sunder Ji"

The reason why I'm letting you know is because I found out that you deal with users who are having COI through your conversion with User:Padmalochanwiki. Thanks. Ayub407^talk 17:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving this notice. Looks like it has been deleted and others have provided COI notice... thanks for taking care of WP. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

Hello, Jytdog! I was just reading the article on Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (which I got to from Marcus Borg), and I have to ask you something. I see "IDL" in the second paragraph of the lead, with no link or explanation. Then, in the third paragraph, I see IDL with a link and explanation of the three words. Shouldn't the link and explanation be at the first appearance of the three letters? Corinne (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw your edits to the article, and I'm sure you know what you're doing, but now, toward the end of the second paragraph of the lead, you've got "interstitial lung disease" linked for a second time. Here's the sentence:

• The diagnosis of IPF requires exclusion of other known causes of interstitial lung diseases (ILD) and the presence of a typical radiological pattern identified through high resolution computed tomography (HRCT).

I just thought I'd point out that "interstitial lung diseases" is plural, so if you just use the acronym it would have to be "ILDs". Also, the sentence will then have three acronyms: IPF, ILDs, and HRCT. It's up to you, but you might decide to leave "interstitial lung diseases", but perhaps it doesn't have to be linked. Corinne (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

maybe that does it? thanks for staying on this. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire). Since you had some involvement with the Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BenjaCamp (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Steroid

A few days ago I saw a request for a copy-edit of the article Steroid at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests#Steroid. (See the request and accompanying comment.) I don't know enough about this subject to catch any errors in content or improve organization, but I thought you probably do know enough. I'd be glad to go through it after you review the content and organization. Corinne (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note that I have mentioned you here. Jusdafax 22:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Jusdafax it is so strange to me that you very clearly discussed coming after me to "lance the boil" with Petra (and not just in that comment - that was just the most colorful expression of the sentiment) but yet you somehow see yourself above the fray here. Your commitment to do that and your acting on that commitment, is a significant part of the ramping-up of conflict that led to this case. Your dehumanization of me is very much part of this mess. I hope you will be able to see that by the end of this. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case. The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
2. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

Asking for your intervention

Hi, User:Jytdog. I would like for your professional advice concerning an editor whom I feel is being very disruptive in an article which we have both taken great pains to write. We are both the chief contributors to the article Bayt Nattif, but, we have had our differences as to what is appropriate to add in this WP article. It concerns the history of the depopulated Arab-village, Bayt Nattif. Please review the history of that article, and, especially, the article's Talk page, under the sub-section: "..and yet again..." My disputant in this case is a Palestinian Arab woman by the name of Huldra. Any advice as to what is or is not appropriate will be greatly welcomed by me. Davidbena (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

For what it is worth: I am female (it is up on my user-page) -that much is true......, but I don´t have a single Palestinian or Arab ancestor .....or relative, nor have I ever claimed that I do. Preconcieved ideas, much? (Btw, I would also like very much "outsiders" to take a look at the dispute), Cheers, Huldra (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Huldra. I apologize. I just assumed that you may be of Palestinian Arab origin, since our lines of communication have been solely on Palestinian-Arab issues with which you are mostly involved. Be well. Davidbena (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)