User talk:Jytdog/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Hugo Gottesmann

Hi, Thank you so much for your help in one of my reference (2) for the year 1915. I added another reference 3 for the year 1916. Gottessman is referenced in 1916 for his awards. WS114WS114 13:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary Jane Doerr (talk • contribs)

sure. Jytdog (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Studio71

Thank you again for your message on my talk. At this point, I'm obviously not trying to push harder than I should and have gone quiet on certain discussions to let things cool down. I understand the controversy of contesting a merge, but do you actually think Studio71 is not notable for a WP? You said I see no real chance in the near future for Studio71 to have its own article in WP. That may change in a year or two.

This is more just for my own understanding: I believe they are notable but why exactly is a contest of the merge not the right thing to do aside from the fact that it will generate more bad feeling for me? Thanks for your patience with me. JacobPace (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

You asked me that already, and I answered already. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! JacobPace (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Notification of GA Reassessment: Behavioral genetics

Behavioural_genetics, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Groceryheist (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Question

Just curious - I do recall at one point you had said that there are holes on Wikipedia that need filling. What kind of examples were you referring to? JacobPace (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

There is always a ton of work to do. Things get outdated and need updating with more current refs; somebody comes through dump a bunch of content into an article throwing off the WEIGHT which then needs rebalancing; people create SPLITs and leave stub content in the main article, which then gets built back up with different content and sourcing, leaving the main article and split article out of sync and leaving us with "meta-editing" gardening work to do; and there all kinds of notable subjects that don't have articles at all. In the fields of stuff I edit about, some day I intend to write Susan Niditch ( biblical scholar, Rich Aldrich (investor in the boston biotech scene), and Barbara Dalton (pharma VC)... I am sure there are holes in subjects you are knowledgeable about too! I don't think there is a universal "to do" list anywhere but I am sure lots of wikiprojects have to do lists you could check. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Will research this over the weekend in more detail. JacobPace (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick follow up question here so I can fully understand. I'm assuming you find these notable through WP:BIO correct? Any specific part that you see validate the notability of these people? No rush at all. You've given me more than is needed as it is. Thank you. JacobPace (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Niditch will fly per WP:PROF; the other two I am not certain. I imagine they will be but since I have not really gone searching yet I am not sure. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, cool. Just wondering. JacobPace (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The Exodus article is one sided and offensive. Please help to resolve.

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

---

The majority of this article is offensive, one sides, anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian. How can you call the history of the majority of the worlds faith (Abrahamic faiths including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) and the history of the nation of Israel a "foundation myth." The author of this article uses untrue and nonobjective generalities like saying "most scholars agree, many scholars agree, a consensus of archaeologists". Being myself a theologians and holder of a masters and doctorate on the subject matter these are just not true. I do not know the best way to edit this post but my attempts to make them objective have been denied. Please help me to know how to make the appropriate corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Aaron Matthew (talk • contribs) 19:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Please post at the article talk page with respect to article content.

You should also be aware that Wikipedia follows scholarship and is not confessional. The history of the Ancient Near East is a scholarly discipline that is conducted in the secular world, like the rest of the discipline of History. I realize this can be frustrating from some religious people. Sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand that postings should be scholarly and not confessional. That is my point. The current post is confessional in that it presents a belief that the historical source material is untrue and disregards the majority of scholarly work that explores the source material including these below just as a few.

United Kingdom Hydrographic Office, Admiralty Chart H2 73 0012 – El 'Aqaba to Duba and Ports on the Sinai Coast, UKHO, Taunton

The Catholic Encyclopaedia

Hansen, P, Timeline from creation to Jesus

Finkelstein, I & Silberman, N (2001), The Bible Unearthed, The Free Press, New York

Gospel Pedlar, James Ussher: The Annals of the World

Merling, D (1999), Did the Israelites Cross the Red Sea or the Gulf of Aqaba?

Shaw, I (2000), Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Uphill, E P (1968), Pithom and Raamses: Their Location and Significance, JNES, Vol.27 No.4

Wyatt Archaeology, The Exodus Conspiracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Aaron Matthew (talk • contribs) 20:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Again please discuss specific article content at the article talk page which is Talk:The Exodus

Also, threading and signing comments on talk pages, are both as fundamental here in Wikipedia as "please" and "thank you" - not doing them will make you come across as rude.

I fixed your indenting above, and a bot signed on your behalf.

We indent by putting colons in front of a comment -- put one more than the person who wrote before you -- the Wikipedia software displays an indent. We call this "threading" - see WP:THREAD.

Please sign your post by typing four tildas at the end (exactly four), and the Wikipedia software will turn that into a "signature" - links to your user page and talk page, and a date stamp.

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Silberman and Finklestein deny the historicity of the Exodus, as does the Oxford History of Egypt. None of the rest of those sources are even remotely reliable, and would only represent scholarship to a fundamentalist who explicitly denies real scholarship. Hell, the first is by a regular contributor to AiG. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Jytog, may I intervene by pointing out that history is a scholarly activity that is also pursued in the religious world, according to multiple traditions, but which traditions are generally accepted even in the "secular" world? I realize this can be frustrating for some non-religious people. Sorry about that. But that's the real world. Evensteven (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Obnoxious edit summaries

can the obnoxious smug shit you are putting in your edit summaries (in re Imprimis edits) - ridiculous. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Tatzelwurm

I object your delete, which I am going to revert, and find your edit comment "This is treating legend as reality. Not OK in Wikipedia" to be quite inane, or insult on my intelligence. Of course I realize these stories are far-fetched, and I expect every conceivably sane-minded reader to figure that out, without requiring a caveat at every step that this may not be the "reality".

If you want to figure out some way to contexutalize without making it overtaxing to read, then you are welcome to do so but you have no grounds to do wholesale delete.

These primary sources are also quite properly introduced here and there through secondary sources, generally 19th and 20th century article pieces in folktale type journals as well. Thank you. --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Cat-headed illustration

On the image file File:Houghton Swi 607.23 - Ouresiphoítes helveticus, fig X.jpg I will explain why you should not have reverted to the old caption "18th century cat-headed illustration".

It misleads the reader into thinking the creature is called Tatzelwurm in the book it is taken from, whereas it is not. Therefore I called it a dragon (in Latin) as it does the book. Additional information like "encountered ca. 1660" was meant as additonal info on the corresponding text, not to dress this up as real. The caption has been amended to "Depiction of the cat-headed dragon claimed to have been encountered on Mt. Kamor". --Kiyoweap (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

again see my talk page

Is there anyway I can notify you when I make edits there or do I always need to leave a message here too? Upoon7 (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't need to notify me at all. You dont need to leave a message here. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Dont delete explanatoy notes that are referenced

Like in your edit here, when my text reads

".. dialects.{{Efn|Dialect of [[Canton of Aargau]].. according to Rochholz}}<ref name=doblhoff-apud-kohlrusch&rochholz/>

isn't it quite obvious that the text enclosed in {{Efn}} is probably given in the same citatin that has "rocholz" in it? Don't delete text as WP:OR without checking if it is in the inline citation. You did this same thing 3 times. --Kiyoweap (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

With regard to this note and the ones above, please post them at the article talk page and I will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

No. If it were a content issue, where you had some source evidence to contradict the information, that would be a worthy topic on the page.

What I am pointing out is that you deleted information claiming WP:OR even though the information was in plain sight in the inline citation I gave. That does not constitute substantive discussion on the topic of Tatzelwurm helpful to others interested in writing about the topic. --Kiyoweap (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

PLease discuss content at the article talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Large Paid Editing Declaration

Hi Jytdog, I received a message from User:Bbarmadillo, who seems to have made a gigantic declaration of paid editing. I wonder if you have see it. He sent me an email, for some reason. scope_creep (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hm! Looks at first glance like they are being a good citizen. Will look further and keep my fingers crossed. Odd that he emailed you. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

YGM

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello

I revised your notes on my editing on Barefoot and I'd like to ask you the following:
- Didn't you notice that all your corrections where you refer to unsourced text didn't have any connection with my text? I never add the text without citations.
- Your notes about badly sourced information have nothing to do with my citations added, they are not mine.
- Can you show me which text that I added is regarded as promotional - for me to know and not to make such mistakes in the further editing
- Why any book I added to External sources you regard redundant (is it enough to cite the website where they are in the Bibliography?)

And as to the editing of Atkins - I didn't mean any editor war beginning. I didn't reverse your editing I just eliminated the sentence where I enumerated the names of celebrities that had used his diet as you wrote it was promotional and continued editing. That's all. If I do it by mistake, then I'm sorry. I didn't mean that I didn't pay attention to your notes. Will you be so kind to show me what text in this article is regarded as promotional for me not to repeat such mistakes further on.Lyupant (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss article content on the article talk page. Please be aware that not everything is about your edits. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

"this is not good and we should perhaps consider MfDing"

See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 57#Inherently non-neutral forum used to canvas keep !votes in AFDs?. This is classic "Rescue Squad" behaviour, where the one person seriously opposing deletion responds to a weak-but-steadily-growing consensus to delete by posting to the Rescue List, and several of their regulars show up to auto-!vote "keep" with superficial "See! I found these sources that I clearly haven't read! GNG!" comments.

Sometimes they even show up and steamroll an AFD, and never make any effort to fix the article under discussion, until yoi explicitly call them out on it so they either (a) make a feeble attempt to improve the article with sub-optimal sources and OR or (b) unilaterally change the topic of the article completely, delete everything in it, and create an entirely new article in its place (which still is not ideal but meets WP:NLIST), while still claiming that they are "keeping" the article and that the article was always on their new topic.

But don't dare talk about any of this in public, or you'll be hounded for weeks for your "battleground" mentality and your being a member of "the deletionist camp".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for posting to the discussions you opened; it is very useful to know what past conversations were. An effective MfD or other community action would require a lot more homework to show the behavior, and then work to present that concisely so that other people can quickly grasp the issue. I have not done that work yet to see if this is a trend and if so, if it is serious enough to try to galvanize action around; my "if" was an authentic "if". But thanks again for making me aware of those two discussions. Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to give you the full background, or even a thorough explanation of my full history with ARS (which only goes back a month). If it had been, I would have also linked you directly to Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list#RFC about proposed guideline amendment, where some of the worst harassment took place over a concentrated period, in response to my good-faith request that they at least tone down the more blatant canvassing (my proposal would have, in this case, banned Cunard from responding to the growing delete consensus by "calling in reinforcements, so to speak). It's linked in the above discussion anyway, which I assume is what you meant by "those two discussions". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I just read through all of that background, and it leaves me feeling saddened. What I am seeing is a group of editors with a battleground attitude towards AfD, as extreme inclusionists, who have figured out a way to canvass without getting caught. They constructed their project so that they can always say that they are not about canvassing, and just as you said, they are trigger happy to hound anyone who says otherwise. An MfD will get shouted down. I think that the best one can do is to open an ANI thread after each AfD where they show up and make trouble, knowing full well that the ANI thread will degenerate into a long argument that leads nowhere, and after building up enough of those to justify an ArbCom case, open such a case and be prepared to document that they just !vote without actually working to improve the pages. It's a matter of documenting each time an editor comes to an AfD after a post at their project, but does nothing to actually edit the page that was nominated for deletion. And I'm saying this on-Wiki with an expectation that they will see what I have posted here, and will take it as a challenge to actually do rescues the right way, which would make such an ArbCom case unnecessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not so hopeless about an MfD, if there is indeed a problem. The project's own guidelines say that participants are not supposed to show up and votestack but rather do the work to actually rescue - I was happily surprised to see that guidance saying the correct thing. One imagines that this became so prominently posted because participants (being human like everybody else) tend to slide into doing the easier, incorrect thing. If there is a pattern of doing the wrong thing despite their own guidance, that would be a strong reason to delete at MfD - the argument would be (subjunctive, as I haven't done the research yet) that the project leads people to disruptive behavior. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It's very doubtful an MfD would succeed but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing anyway. My recollection is that the last time the ARS folks had a bright light shined on them they backed off afterwards and weren't so blatant, at least for a while. You'd have to be scrupulously civil, non-accusing and so on at any MfD for this to work, because (like much of Wikipedia) it's basically a PR game. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Those are good points. And if nothing else, such an MfD would at least provide further justification for going to ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've been in touch with a few of the other editors who expressed similar concerns in the VPM thread, and they basically said it's essentially a spent force that now serves mainly to turn the odd "delete" consensus into "no consensus" (which I suspect will be the outcome at the YPT discussion). I suspect my accidentally stumbling across them last month and bringing it up on VPM "woke the dragon" and this is what has led to recent spurt in activity of both the project and one of its (formerly dormant) members, and I should have left well enough alone. One of the commenters at VPM (who probably should have been blocked for repeated and unapologetic copyvio years ago) "coincidentally" showed up there having never edited VPM before and having been involved in the AFD from 2013 that inspired the discussion,[1] so it seems awfully likely that someone was circulating emails about it. Basically what I'm saying is that the potential benefits of a community discussion must be weighed against the fact that getting ARS angry is probably going to be counter-productive in the short run, as well as the fact that multiple MFDs have already resulted in "no consensus" in the past because shutting down XFDs is literally the thing ARS built its reputation on. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

In re their guidance saying the right thing, I just did this: [2]. Let's see if it sticks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes lets do see. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I was quickly reverted, big surprise. It would be good if other editors would keep an eye on this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri88, thanks for mentioning that it has been up for MfD before - I just searched and found 4 past discussions. I will read them before I do anything. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Your borderline vandalism of The Great Courses

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

---

Hey it's one thing to rightfully call out spam, and delete dubious references such as those to the Teaching Company's website. But gutting an article by rather wantonly stripping out half of the content, and removing correct and useful information that has been put there by the many Wikipedian contributors who appreciate the excellent Great Courses series -- I am one of them -- your act is borderline vandalism. The list of types of courses and teachers (many of whom have articles in Wikipedia -- they are excellent teachers generally) is valuable information for pretty much everybody. Instead of gutting an article, why not add a tag saying more sources are needed? Then, when I attempt to restore some of the deleted non-promotional content, you reverted my restoration which is edit warring. You're going to have to learn a lesson here, that there are other contributors to this encyclopedia, and they may have viewpoints that differ from yours, and you, acting unilaterally, can get you in trouble with the Wikipedia community.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:PROMO are policy. Removing policy-violating content is not vandalism. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You're going hogwild with your deletions, then edit-warring when I tried to restore valuable content. You should treat Wikipedians like me, who've been here awhile, with more deference and respect.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN you are very welcome to find high quality sources for that content that was removed and restore it if it complies with the rest of WP policies. Nobody welcomes restoration of unsourced, promotional content. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Your AN3 complaint

Regarding this report, I think it needs some kind of editor consensus at an appropriate venue. If you think that WP:PSCI is the major issue you might consider the WP:FTN. I don't see a case for an AN3 block with the data you have provided. In my opinion the case wouldn't be clear-cut even at AE. The ARBPS decision is mostly oriented to 'alternative science' where somebody is defending a set of beliefs that appear to be a system but are in conflict with normal science. Or something like the electric universe. A plain old WP:RFC is something else you might consider. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Ed! Sorry I missed it. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

COIN

Thanks for starting the discussion. I added some background that I hope won't be too distracting.

I think you want to revise is very hard to understand if there is some external interest driving it. because I believe you mean "very hard to understand unless there is...". --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, yes that is what i meant. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this coincidence...

...or did somebody pick on the dumping waste in National Forests metaphor? "It's not polite to treat Wikipedia like an endlessly renewable resource with infinite free labor" – Phoebe Ayers, quoted in The Verge Cheers ☆ Bri (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I reckon it is coincidence - I am happy to see it and want to see more of it! Thanks for letting me know about it Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Journal series

Re: this, have you thought about these as well? Best, JBL (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Penuma

We typically simple redirect brands to generics. But am easy either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

yes i know. i wanted this gone. thanks for bearing with that. medical marketing in wikipedia grrrrr. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Smarter Lunchroom Movement

Hello Jytdog, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Smarter Lunchroom Movement, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional, and at least possibly notable. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Consumer Education Foundation

Hello Jytdog, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Consumer Education Foundation, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Eastmain I am well aware of the criteria. I strongly urge you to read WP:PROMO - if you have a pattern of stripping speedy tags from blatant spam that would be a bad thing. There are a nest of people connected to this group that have done nothing but dump promotional garbage to WP. This is not even a little ambiguous. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shirley Ratcliffe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sex chromosome disorders (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I chose not to fix this. Sorry bot. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Bill Fink

Thanks for re-draftifying this. You beat me to it by a few minutes. I've deleted and salted the redirect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for handling the redirect! I feel bad for KDS4444; he has lived himself into a bad place.Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of the word “common”

A one word revisionist? Please use article’s TALK page to see why there is so much confusion over the common usage of the alternate name. Riptide360 (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss content on the relevant article's talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

request for feedback to recent post

Please respond to me current post on the talk page. It's interesting that when I"undo" an edit, it receives immediate response- but when I listen to the editing community- no one responds to my requests. Please respond to my current post. I have taken this matter to the editing community, as requested, and can not receive a response. Shushu2 (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)shushu2

Thanks, I replied at your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Animal models

Jytdog, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on adding a section on animal models to the biology of depression page. Given the amount of research into the neural circuitry of depression (albeit with potentially questionable behavioral models), I think it is significant enough to warrant discussion, but I would appreciate your opinion.Petergstrom (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

These are some of the sources I was thinking of using

• Optogenetics to study the circuits of fear- and depression-like behaviors: a critical analysis
• Circuit-based frameworks of depressive behaviors: The role of reward circuitry and beyond
• Melancholy, anhedonia, apathy: the search for separable behaviors and neural circuits in depression
• Progress in understanding mood disorders: optogenetic dissection of neural circuits
• Optogenetic dissection of neural circuits underlying emotional valence and motivated behaviors
• Reward processing by the lateral habenula in normal and depressive behaviors

Petergstrom (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Template_talk:COI#RfC_-_on_template_removal_guidance

Hi Jytdog. This is a courtesy note to let you know I have closed a Request for Comment you initiated, at Template_talk:COI#RfC_-_on_template_removal_guidance. Kind regards, Fish+Karate 11:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Defender of the Wiki

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For all your good work.[3] Bishonen | talk 13:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah! Seconded—Get your big sword out, JYTdog! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 13:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. but sword, yikes. There are people doing much more powerful and sweeping work on this stuff. I am more like a gardener pulling up weeds here and there. Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, you are a very important weeder. Honestly, every time I dip my toe into that stuff, I find that I just don't have the stomach for it. I'm grateful that other editors do. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thx to both of you. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

will try to do better

Thanks for the information about the automated citation feature (I'd been doing citations all by hand) and about the need not to use phrases like "it should be noted" or "pointed out". I'll go back over my past edits (of which there aren't many) and change those sorts of phrases when I find them. NightHeron (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

2nd question (unrelated)

I see your user page says you edit medical articles a lot. I've been participating on the Talk:Alternative medicine arguing that the article needs balance and NPOV, which (it seems to me) it currently lacks. If you have time, could you check out the "balance and NPOV" section of that discussion, and tell me whether you think I'm misinterpreting NPOV? My purpose in entering that discussion is not to hassle people, and in fact I strongly agree with their objective of opposing pseudoscience. Please let me know if you don't think there's an NPOV issue there.

As far as my previous message goes, I'm happy to defer to your judgment about those edits. I just wanted to assure you that they seemed sensible at the time, even though admittedly they were clumsy, and I was surprised that they caused such an angry response. NightHeron (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

With regard to what you have been writing at the Alt med article, this is just general, and not specific to that article (specific discussion belongs at the article talk page....)

1. As some other folks there have noted, trying to have a high-level discussion about whether a given article fails NPOV is going to lead to high level replies, which inevitably will degenerate into a forum-like discussion which is not what talk pages are for. In other words, it isn't productive and leads everybody astray. It always much better to make very specific proposals.
2. With regard to the lead of any article..... Per WP:LEAD, the lead should just summarize what is already in the body of the article, giving weight (space and emphasis) as the body does. Writing a lead for the most part is very mechanical -- some art can come into it, with respect to trying to write supportable summaries of sections in the body, but that is as far as "art" or style goes. In general a discussion about whether a lead is NPOV or not, that is not grounded in whether the lead accurately summarizes the body, is unproductive as well as off-base. (the right questions to ask are things like the following.. Is there anything in the lead that is only in the lead, and not summarizing content in the body? Are there major chunks of content in the body of the article that are not summarized in the lead? Does weight given to things in the lead, accurately reflect the weight given to them in the body?
3. With regard to the body of the article -- when I first encounter an article the first thing I do is review the sources. Do they appear to be a) high quality? and b) fairly recent? Are they well formatted? Once I have sense of the sources, I scan the body and look to see if it is well-organized and if there are big chunks of unsourced content or stretches of badly sourced content. If there are one of the first things I do is remove or condense those. Only then do I even look at the lead, and ask the questions I noted above. That is the initial review I do. What I do next depends on the quality of the existing sources. If they appear high quality and relatively recent I read them (!). Then I go and look to see if the content accurately summarizes those sources. Once all that is good, I go and look to see if there are strong and relatively recent sources out there that we are not using, and bring them, always keeping WEIGHT in mind.

It is not good to go looking for some specific kind of source to back up some specific slant. Instead, look for the best sources and and summarize what they say.

So that if you want to "work over" the alt med article (or any article), that is what you should do, in my view. It is a lot of work! Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

concerning "PROMO and outright spam"

After sending me helpful information just a few hours before, I'm surprised that you slam my latest edits with the insulting words "PROMO and outright spam". I know that you're a very experienced editor, so it was quite a shock that you would ignore Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. The reason for the link to Koblitz's blog was that the blog, according to information the author posted about her book, is devoted to "further commentary, updates on material in the book, and readers' comments." It's obviously not a commercial or promotional site, but rather a supplement to her book. It's also freely available online, which the book is not. So what's wrong with giving the link?

The reason for the added words before the footnotes after Koblitz's listed books is that otherwise I think many readers would not know that the footnote is really a note, not just a citation. I admit that it's a clumsy way to tell the reader what the footnote concerns. I just couldn't think of a better way.

As you know, I'm new at this. I'm not yet familiar with all the conventions and the style of Wikipedia. My edits were designed to be informative to the reader. That's all.

Those edits were minor ones designed to clarify things and point the reader to more information. Why would anyone characterize that as "promo" or "spam"? NightHeron (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

You are talking about this specific edit I made. Please avoid personal websites unless using them is absolutely necessary. It is pretty clear you are a fan of Koblitz; please be careful not to try to sell her to everybody else via WP. I debated removing the quotes from the reviews but was trying to be gentle in leaving them. I have not gone and myself looked to see if the reviews you chose to cite were representative of the scholarly response to her books or not. That is something I need to get to. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarification of wording of Barbara's topic ban

Sandstein has closed the User:Barbara (WVS) ANI discussion with a topic ban worded "is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from medical articles". Following discussion with Sandstein regarding the scope of that topic ban (User_talk:Sandstein#What_the_topic_ban_covers), it is felt that further wording is required. Therefore it is proposed that the wording of the topic ban is amended to read:

"By consensus of the community, Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs), also editing as Bfpage (talk · contribs), is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed, and is also banned from interacting with Flyer22 (talk · contribs) (WP:IBAN)."

As you took place in the discussion, please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_clarification_of_scope_of_topic_ban to give your views. SilkTork (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

User:SuperSucker

Per this, I will eventually get around to looking at all of the suicide articles he's edited and will ask for semi-protection on all of them since his IP is not always the same and he will continue editing the way he's been editing. He is also likely to create a new account, but it will be easy to identify. Thanks for your help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

And thank you, Courcelles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Indeed, their IP is quite dynamic. Please let me know if they show up again. And also let me know which pages you think I need to protect. Courcelles (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

List of works

Hi, I saw you were recently active at WP:CSC (talk) and thought I'd just ask you instead of posting there. Is there any kind of standard for lists of works by an author, in that author's biography? I'm looking at an article with ~two dozen books and some pretty heavy history of promotion. I don't see any book reviews, so possibly none of them is notable. ISBN 0-684-86215-8 is an example. Thx. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

jyt

don't allow anyone to bully you out of here[4]your a very good editor... Desiderata--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just been busy in the RW. :) Jytdog (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

basement

Are you hiding in my basement? HA. Someone has started an SPI about you and I. I believe it's smokescreen.104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Jytdog, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

• Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

• While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

• The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Issues at Ketonic diet

I'd be grateful for your input to the discussion at Talk:Ketogenic diet#Another revert. The specific topic is the first paragraph of Ketogenic diet#Other applications and how it relates to WP:MEDRS. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I saw it already; have been following the discussion and thinking. Your post is kind of canvassy and was not a good idea. Jytdog (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Upon reflection ...

I agree with what you said on my talk page, that my close was too terse. I should have explained myself more fully. I apologize for that. Sigh … and if I could do things over I would handle our discussion on my talk page differently as well. I’m sorry for that too. You said at AN that you wish to disengage, I respect that, so don’t feel like you need to respond to this. Regards, Paul August ☎ 15:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! I appreciate you taking the time and thought and I bear no ill will toward you and hope that you have none toward me. I really just wanted to disengage from that specific interaction. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Life's not fair

You ended up doing almost all the work after all. [5] Hardly a just reward, but I wanted to say thank you. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Life in community! :) Thanks for your note. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Re-worded

I'm sorry If I worded my response poorly. I've reworded it. If you could take a look, I'd appreciate it.  Spintendo      19:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted your "rewording". Please WP:REDACT. I will respond there after you do; there is no need to post here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Redacted per your request.

When I said invalidated, I meant you invalidated the use of the journals, not that you were invalidating my COI edit review. I apologize for this misunderstanding, and I have added the redacted version to my page at your request.  Spintendo      19:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Alexander Technique page

Hello Jytdog,

If you could explain your reasoning on reverting the Alexander Tech page, I would be ever so grateful. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tictocdocs (talk • contribs) 19:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Happy to discuss content at the article talk page - if ask there i will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

dispute

I filed a dispute for unfair bad faith COI accusations and leaving behind a mostly deleted and uninformative page Science contributor101 (talk)

Thanks for letting me know. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Bcash alt name

Hello Jytdog,

Could you please take a look at my revised Bitcoin Cash article altname RfC text to see if it is neutral and brief? Please feel free to edit my sandbox.

User:Jtbobwaysf/sandbox#Revised_RfC_on_altname_Bcash

Thank you Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Jtbobwaysf sorry for the delay. That is an appropriate RfC yes! Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

IrishCentral

I think AfD is a much better route. My guess is that it will pass, but my involvement was to clear out the promotion and copyvio and add a source, although not one sufficient to show notability. I've also advised the person with the same name as the director what to do. Doug Weller talk 20:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I saw, and I agree. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Some obvious paid editors, but Thurles2 might be just a fan who is probably too incompetent to be editing anyway, he wrecked the article and the AfD. Doug Weller talk 06:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nina Teicholz has been accepted

Nina Teicholz, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Dial911 (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the review User:Dial911. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries mate! Do you have New Page Reviewer flag? Dial911 (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I do. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

What's the benefit of an experienced editor using AfC? Natureium (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of the article. Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

BNY Mellon - First Company Listed

Hi! I have responded to your concerns on the talk page for your input on the Bank of New York Mellon and whether it was the first company listed (also for reverting 1 change, yes 1! edit and adding a cite does not make an edit war - try to offer to discuss this amicably before claiming straight away there is an edit war if this happens in the future).Hkong22 (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Sodium Oxybate COI edit request

Hello! There is a newer COI edit request concerning Sodium Oxybate and another pharmaceutical precursor of that same drug in the request queue. Since it was medical related I wanted to get your input before attempting to address it. It looks like they want press release information or information from the drug's package insert placed in the article. What is wikipedia's stance on letting this info be reproduced in the article? Thank you for any help you can provide!  Spintendo      17:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The label , yes, but it should be sourced to the FDA's website not the company. generally no to press releases. I will have a look at the actual requests tonight. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Spintendo thanks for bringing the request at sodium oxybate to me. That page was already really bad and needed a complete work-over, and the COI requests were hard on their own, much less on top of that mess. Solriamfetol was kind of messy too. Jytdog (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Tharbis

You may be interested in this one, I didn't know we had it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

oh my! I am. Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't suppose we can use this [6] as leadimage? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh man.  :) Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

BNY Mellon

Hi, Following your response on the talk page I have requested a third opinion to help look into this. Hopefully, you will be happy to amicably engage. Hkong22 (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; you did not however request WP:3O, you filed at WP:DRN. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:MEDDATE

Hello Jytdog,

I read WP:MEDDATE and see no issues with what I've posted. New research is not being represented on this Glioblastoma page (at least not under non-risks). There is certainly some perceivable risk given that long-term studies have not concluded and that recent studies are finding inconclusive evidence (for and against). I'm just asking that the section entitled Non-Risks be edited to remove Cell Phones and Cell Phones should be moved to unclear risks.

Under this section is another sentence that briefly mentions unclear risks. Please consider moving it here.

While this mindset of cell phones being perfectly harmless may have been true several years ago, none of the current studies are claiming this any longer. Please read the Talk page for Glioblastoma for more information.

I'll leave you with one final thought... Consider this logic; smoking a cigarette won't give you cancer. Smoking cigarettes for 5 to 10 years might not give you cancer. Smoking cigarettes for 20,30,or more years will likely give you cancer. So, before we knew for certain that long term smoking habits lead to cancer, would it have been a good idea to announce that cigarettes are a "non-risk", simply because the independent, long-term studies hadn't concluded? That would have been very presumptuous indeed.

Thank you for your time,

--Wbeaton (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss content at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, I have. Can you please respond? You're the one rejecting my edit. --Wbeaton (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. I replied there and made a few edits. Please reply there. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeshua

Do you have any comments on Yeshua being put in a Bracket as Colliric suggested?ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry.com

Hey there. Thanks for your great work on 23&Me. I was wondering if you may look at Ancestry.com as that page has a similar problem with using almost entirely primary sources. I have removed a ton of them but there are still many more and I just got really tired of working on that on both articles. R9tgokunks ✡ 00:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure i will look at it. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Venom in Medicine

And others- appreciation of good edits. Very good work.PRehse (talk)

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The Pillars of BLP articles

Just notifying you manually of a newer discussion at Talk:Joshua Waitzkin That discussion, which is discussed in detail at the article's talk page, involves an issue which comes up again and again, and I wasn't entirely sure of how they are handled. (I'm asking here because it's a question which is broader in nature than just the one topic.) That question is how to proceed when the subject of an article, notable for one particular instance of something, then wishes to expand their article with other items that they are interested in, but are not necessarily notable for. I understand the pillars of blp article creation - (NPOV, NOR, V) - but the guidance is vague with regards to how information is handled after article creation. Do those fundamental pillars extend beyond the creation point, to include interests of the subject which came after the initial notability? (Again, the particular details of the Josh Waitzkin request are at that article's talk page, per your request at the top of your talk page to leave discussions there.) You may answer the question I am asking here there, if you prefer. Thank you for any help you can offer, I appreciate it.  Spintendo          17:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

That is a great question and one that is endlessly debated. (so no easy answers, I am sorry to say).

Some people pretty much look only at WP:V, and not at any other policies, and generally say "If is it in a reliable source, include it!"

Others look at one or more other policies as well, as well as looking harder at V

One can look harder at the source, and ask if it independent or the subject and if it is WP:PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY. (generally WP articles should be built from independent secondary sources, and if one is going to use a source that is not independent or secondary, there should be some good reason for that)

Bringing in WP:NPOV, one can ask "Is including it WP:DUE or should we leave it out as being WP:UNDUE? " (WP:RECENTISM is important to keep in mind as well, and something that we as an editing community generally suck at avoiding - "current events" tend to get enormously UNDUE weight)

Bringing in WP:NOT, one can ask broadly if the content/sourcing aims at WP's mission of providing readers with accepted knowledge, or if it not, but is instead just WP:TRIVIA or WP:GOSSIP or news or fails in some other regard. One can also ask if this is really just WP:PROMO.

Finally one should always think about BLP which calls us to apply all the policies rigorously and in addition ask if this is really aimed at providing accepted knowledge about the person; lots of false flags get flown under BLP (BLP is not a reason to exclude negative information but it is a reason to ensure that negative information is very well sourced and summarizes the source accurately; BLP is not a reason to do whatever the subject wants).

Like I said, it is a great question. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok so to recap, it sounds like the different layers which are applied at an article's creation all come back to play their own individual parts in allowing, or disallowing, items during an article's life after creation, and that knowing which ones to use, and when, is a process informed by experience. I hope I got that right... Thank you again for your help, I appreciate it!  Spintendo          09:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh they definitely come into play after the article is created. Conflicts/controversy over what to include and what not to include happen every day. It is especially acute in articles about celebrities and people in politics where fans/haters often try to track all kinds of ... very detailed, day-to-day to stuff. Jytdog (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Signpost - NCORP report

Until we figure out exactly where this will go, could you start a userspace draft following the WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Quick Start guide? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Bri. Not sure I did that right. It seemed opinion-y so I made it an opinion since I had to choose. I am fine with making it more newsy. It is now at Wikipedia:Signpost/Signpost_Opinion2. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You know, I'm not supposed to be providing editorial content this time but I think you could push the op-ed on this harder. I should be able to read the first paragraph and see where you stand on the outcome. Good, bad, or neutral? I don't really get a sense of where you stand from the text right now, or feel like a lot of our readers who aren't super involved in the topic would have a reason to feel excited. What do you think about moving this sentence to the front and expanding it a bit?

That mission [open collaboration] remains as ludicrous as it ever was, yet the editing community has been surprisingly successful at realizing it.

I think you have a good sense of these conflicting tensions and they are inherently dramatic, yet somehow the drama/tension/Sturm und Drang or whatever journalistic buzzword is appropriate, is buried in the piece. In other words, it doesn't have to be dry and wonky if you want to make the column more full of Jytdog flavor. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hm. OK then. I will play with it some more today. Thanks for your time! Jytdog (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer trash clean up

If you want to include an image, search "tire dump" on Commons might be inspiring. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow. I envision long-needed mass AFDs for Category:Autism-related organizations in the United States. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

There is so much work to do, always. :) Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Signpost - next issue

I think your op-ed Signpost - NCORP report needs to be included. There is already a very brief mention of the new policy in News and Notes. However, we have a deadline in 48 hours for the next issue. After that, accepted submissions will be copy edited, and placed in their order of appearance. Please note that Copy Editing in the strictest sense, may alter some of the prose of articles, but not the content or the message it imparts. Please let us know if you can complete by the deadline, or if you prefer it to be deferred to the next issue at the end of May. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Kudpung. i have worked it over and am happy with it. not sure what i am supposed to do now... Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine. Leave the rest to me and Bri - we'll sort it out. In the coming weeks we're going to try and find a way of making it less complicated for users to submit articles. Even I found it a challenge!Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to say sorry for the very generous editing I did on your Signpost submission. We're under 24 hours away from deadline, and I wasn't quite sure whether you'd be online before then - otherwise I would have talked to you before changing so much. The error with ACTRIAL adoption is also obviously my fault, thanks for catching that! --Zarasophos (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your help!! It was generous. I hope my subsequent edits were OK. This is very different from editing in mainspace; this has my username on it so I pushed back on some things more than i usually would. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, just to make sure I meant "generous" as in "a lot" and not "generous" as in "I'm so great". That came out a little weird. And yeah, your article is pretty good, I really liked the illustrations and how you managed to make the drafting of a guideline interesting! As you might know, we're currently facing a very severe manpower shortage at the Signpost - would you maybe consider signing up for the next issue as well? --Zarasophos (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I meant it as in "kind and helpful" :) Hey if you understand how Wikilinks in the signpost work, could you please add a WL to Kudpung's piece where it says "as discussed elsewhere in this issue".? that would be great. Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

thanks for your kind words on the piece. sure i will think about it. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I actually did that already, just put it in the wrong spot :D --Zarasophos (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Brain Overclaim Syndrome

Hi Jytdog. I don't know if you've seen this article's entry at FT/N, but it's a hoax by a WikiEd student -- Morse explicitly coined the phrase as a joke to describe one side of a debate. Seems like a pretty clear candidate for AFD to me, but I figured it would be best to run it by a more experienced editor, especially because of the WikiEd angle. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I redirected to Neurolaw#Cautions_and_concerns and untwisted it. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Signpost

Hi! Looks good to me, thank you for writing it. I do appreciate the pun in the knight pic caption :)

I am curious how the criteria is doing "in the trenches"... Renata (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Glad you are happy with it. I am curious too! Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Byline info

Could you write a bit for your Signpost byline per this guideline? "Suggestion: one to three sentences, that briefly introduces the author and indicates why his or her opinion about the topic might interest the reader". Thanks and looking forward to seeing your column in "print". ☆ Bri (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your shepherding, Bri. do you mean like this? Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

An FYI

I see that you have had some earlier involvement in a topic which I today raised at User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 18#A heads-up. Narky Blert (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2017 Cure Award

In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the message and the work in putting it out! :) Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hello editor, I just saw that you deleted my contribution of the cancer section of Gut Flora page . I undid it because you didn’t leave any cogent explanation. I had basically summarized a peer reviewed study that was published in the prestigious journal Gastroenterology (impact factor ~18) by a cancer group. IMHO, this study along with some corroborating reports from other groups ( See Pushulkar et al, 2018 in Cancer Disovery) clearly establish that at least in lab mice, the gut microbiota may have cancer promoting effects. The effects of the microbiota are mediated through immune systems as shown by the authors through immunodeficient mice and by flow cytometry and blocking immunity experiments. I think this is a conclusive albeit short study that increases our corpus of knowledge regarding cancer and gut microbiota axis in mice. The authors didn’t identify the culprit bug (s).

Credentials : i am an MD and I have been studying the microbiota and cancer interactions as a part of basic research lab in an American university since the last 2.5 years. I would like to contribute edits highlighting important peer-reviewed articles to various microbiota articles here on Wikipedia. I strongly think that the gut bacteria are doing something very fascinating in the numerous niches they inhabit in our body, The microbiota articles on web are full of bizarre and incredulous pieces. I want to make Wikipedia a more reliable source highlighting scientific studies regarding the gut bacteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoseDoc (talk • contribs) 09:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! It is really great that you want to help with our mission. Thanks for that! I left you a welcome message on your talk page, User talk:PoseDoc. Please, please do read it, and the message below that too. There is learning curve in Wikipedia - please slow down and learn how things work. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

COI Closure

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

---

I appreciate your patience and for giving me the benefit of the doubt. However, I still have no idea what policies and guidelines my actions have violated that would qualify my behavior as advocacy. It's going to be difficult for me to avoid making future mistakes if nobody can point me to anything specific. I spent a lot of time reading the policies and guidelines both with respect to content prior to and after the DRV proceedings and have read the articles you linked to. At this point, I plan to give myself and everyone else time to cool off and then attempt to rewrite the article in draft space in a distinctly non-hagiographical way. Snoopydaniels (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you aware that everyone can see your contribution history? Your history is here. (Everyone can see everyone's - there is a link over in the left side margin that says "user contributions")

The longer pattern that I have seen in your editing, is that you edit on hot-button social issues in a way that reflects your feelings. That is what you did way back on Irreducible complexity when you first started editing back in 2010.

You came back more recently, and your edits at Blaire White were absolutely against WP:MOS and WP:BLP and you are very lucky that you were not indefinitely blocked already, just over that. That was pure advocacy, with zero - and I mean zero - effort to understand the context of this place.

You went directly from that, to deletion reviews over the Bechley page, and have been just ignoring what everyone else has said to you in those discussions.

You are using your editing privileges in WP to wage the culture wars. Editing WP is a privilege, not a right. It is a privilege that we make available to everyone (which is insane, but that is how this place works). In return, we ask people to aim for the mission, and to learn and follow the policies and guidelines. We take editing privileges away from people who abuse them.

I don't see that you have made any contributions to WP, that were about our mission, which is to work collaboratively, in order to present the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, so that people can learn. That is what we do here.

Coming here to wage culture wars, is not building the encyclopedia. We call this not here to build an encyclopedia.

Please do read User:Jytdog/How, and for something shorter, have a look at my userpage, at User:Jytdog#NPOV_part_1:_secondary_sources. Maybe that will help you understand what your editing privileges are for. I hope you try to learn. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm perfectly aware that people can see my contributions. You will also notice that I stopped editing the article in question because I learned about WP:MOS. The edits to the Intelligent Design article back in 2010 took place back before I even realized that Wikipedia had any kind of formal rules. I was a complete and utter neophyte.

Saying that I was "ignoring what everyone else has said" in the DRV discussion is so obviously false that you can't possibly expect me to take you seriously. I provided policy-based refutations of their arguments and they failed to respond in kind. That's the opposite of ignoring. The proponents of deletion were the ones doing the ignoring.

Improving WP by going after obvious cases of bias and other violations of its content rules IS A CONTRIBUTION TO WIKIPEDIA. Not everyone involved in publishing a paper dictionary directly writes the articles. So far, from what I've seen, most editors only care about the policies and guidelines when it suits them.Snoopydaniels (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

One thing at a time. Tell me, what has been the response to you at DRV, and at COIN, and at the talk pages of experienced users, with respect to your most recent campaign? it is very simple. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Completely uninformed opinions and a total unwillingness to examine facts.Snoopydaniels (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

This is what I mean by "not listening". People have given you very good advice, which you have ignored. This project lives in the tension between a sort of libertarian ethos (people are encouraged to be bold and make things happen - this is how we grow) and a communitarian ethos (the basis of this whole place is WP:CONSENSUS- this is how we are regulated, so we don't have a) chaos that squanders volunteer time (the lifeblood of this place) and b) uncontrolled growth which is just cancer). Lose either, and this project dies.

Persistently ignoring very good advice and consensus-driven decisions is another sign of being not here to build an encyclopedia.

You are definitely driving directly over the cliff. Unless you change, it is only a matter of time until you lose your editing privileges. Like I said at COIN, it is your path to make.

I suggest you go back and read the discussions you have been a part of about the Bechley page and listen. People have advised you what you should do next. If you figure it out and want to tell me, let me know. I am completely uninterested in arguing with you, and I won't. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I've already demonstrated a willingness to change based on specific and applicable advice in the case of MOS:GENDER. I can't do anything with aspersions and vague suggestions.Snoopydaniels (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Merger discussion for Vitamin B3

An article that you have been involved in editing—Vitamin B3—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. SusanLesch (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

What would you do?

If you had a situation where an old SPI revealed (and parties admitted) meat puppetry, the parties were warned, all but one were blocked, red linked SPAs constantly appear at the article anyway, and eight years later a new editor appeared this year, edited same article with same aims as previous (to promote the work of the biographical subject), and when editing logged out, revealed their IP which geolocates to within half a block of the location of the company of the person in question ... would you submit another SPI, or just bring it to COIN? The reason I am unclear is that there is something about SPI not revealing IP addresses that I don't understand. I've got a duck quacking loudly, who revealed his IP, but don't know where to most effectively take this. Also, if this account is dealt with, others will just appear, so watchful waiting may be a better approach. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be good to file at both COIN and SPI - you will get different people thinking about different parts of the problem, and folks at COIN will probably watchlist the page to help over the longer term.

It is OK to post IPs at SPI (there is a parameter to list them) but the CUs/clerks/admins there will not comment in public about them -- they will use that evidence, however. The thing to avoid is making a claim that X editor is Y person unless they have made that statement here in WP. See for example this SPI where the master disclosed their identity, changed their account name, then went on a socking campaign over several years to promote themselves, their ideas, and people they knew. If they haven't self-disclosed, just say "this person clearly has some undisclosed relationship to Y person/company/etc" and you avoid the whole OUTING mess. Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

In this case, the editor logged back in and re-signed over the IP, and indicated it was him, asking me to strike my reply to the IP (smart). The deal is, I am less interested in getting another sock blocked as I am in finding a long-term solution to this issue. It has been going on for at least 8 years. With prolific sockmasters, sometimes when you know who they are, it's better just to keep an eye on them? It appears that this company might put its new interns to work on Wikipedia ... So what would you do to get it addressed long-term? They were shut down 8 years ago, bided their time, came back with same ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You have even more evidence with them signing over the IP. That is helpful, and not a hindrance. I recommend you file at SPI and COIN. There are benefits to both. (one of the benefits of getting them identified as socks as that it becomes easier to revert per BLOCKEVASION and if they build up a serious record of socking (as shown at SPI) we can have them community banned which is even stronger. The benefit of filing at COIN is that people will probably help watchlist and clean. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks Jyt-- I will work on this over the week, when we have several long clinic appts, so I can enjoy some of my weekend. Most appreciated, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

So, what do you do when someone blanks text using a username that appears to be a real name of a connected person and anyone can google the name, which is made even easier by the custom of using both last names in LatinAmerica? We still can't suggest the username is the real person, even if they appear to be the same? So just a general COI notice in this case? And go to COIN if cited text blanking continues? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

New discussion on Administrators' noticeboard

I am starting a new discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard regarding the malicious editing and AfD actions by Jytdog Quinn2425 (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Well that will be one way to finally wrap this up. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I see that you have some kind of special powers -- you can magically make things appear and disappear on Wikipedia. You win. The public loses. Some big man you are. Arcata168 (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way Quinn2425/Arcata168. Mark Worth works against corruption in the real world. Conflict of interest and advocacy editing corrupts Wikipedia; I work carefully on that kind of stuff here, within WP's policies and guidelines. It is unfortunate that you cannot see how Worth and I are kind of aligned in terms of what we do (not so much in how we do it, nor in the arenas where we do it). I am not any kind of "big man".Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

suspicious user

you did an RfC about the supporters section on Bitcoin Cash. two pretty lonely keep votes are:

• keep These people are not "celebrities" but operators in the sector and they simply express their opinion on this cryptocurrency. Being the cryptoverse as diverse as it is, it is important to understand what currencies simply appear and disappear as little more than scams and what provide values. People in the cryptoverse talking about a specific coin can therefore hardly be seen as "celebrity promotion". REDGOLPE (TALK) 18:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• keep Promotionalism is the act of promoting something. Educated persons working in the crypto field endorsing a project is something different. --RGbobwaysf (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)— RGbobwaysf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

the second vote's account was likely created just to vote. however, note the suspicious name of the second vote RGbobwaysf, seems quite similar to my name jtbobwaysf (for the record no relation to me). Vote time stamp just 6 minutes later than REDGOLPE's (RG?) first vote. I wonder if the two user's IP address also the same? Thought you might have the tools to lookup the user...

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

yes that is a ridiculously POINTY username. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Any idea...

...what this might be about? I presume I can just ignore? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

hey User:Bastun. Don't know why they reached out to you but a) they violated their tban (imposed here in a thread i opened; b) they have been reading Wikipediocracy or some other fan site i guess Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hedvig Hricak

Hey Jytdog, I know you keep pretty busy on here, so I just wanted to reach out to you on your talk page in case you hadn't seen my reply on Hricak's talk page. I started working from the November version of the article, and included some of your removals from the infobox, but also found sources for some of the other content that you had initially removed. I think another thing had been overlooked was the removal of her photo from the infobox for no apparent reason, so I added a placeholder for it in my draft. Here's a link to the diff for easy access. Thanks again for all your help!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Updating Research with Current Research

It appears that three sections that I added today were removed despite citing peer-reviewed sources. I am guessing that this occurred because I am the primary author of many of those sources. However, the sections that I added were important clarifications of the literature, and no other authors have conducted this empirical work. Many of the notions that I was seeing on Wikipedia were outdated notions based on prior evidence, and I was adding the most recent evidence. I don't understand how I'm supposed to add a caveat to an outdated notion without citing relevant research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njacobson88 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Please read and follow WP:MEDRS and please read the notices on your talk page, at User talk:Njacobson88. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Greg J. Marchand

Why did you restore the original article after removing all the crazy? Natureium (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Some people consider it bad form to do during an AfD and call it "gutting" or "blanking". If I do it to see what is actually left, i self-revert and link to whatever was left in the AfD so people in the discussion can see it. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Finasteride Article; Adverse Effects of Finasteride; there has been a concerted effort over many years to downplay the adverse effects of finasteride.". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 May 2018.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 13:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk page

I did ''''NOT'''' revert your edit, and have started a discussion on the talk page. You're welcome.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

About SOP: not all his edits are bad, but not all his edits are good, either. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

SOP, yep. I knew that. Odd note. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Finasteride Article; Adverse Effects of Finasteride; there has been a concerted effort over many years to downplay the adverse effects of finasteride., to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Augur (software) page vandalism

Hey jytdog, I've seen you've intervened in some of the previous crypto pages like IOTA. I am requesting you to intervene in the page Augur. I've updated the article to reflect that one of the founders has since left the project to join a hedge fund. I've provide a source for it too (https://www.coindesk.com/100-million-pantera-capital-ico-hedge-fund/) and is generally a well known industry event. Some user keeps deleting this update without merit (you can see the history and their reason). I am very sure the founder hasn't come back to work on Augur, although they still contribute occasionally. In my opinion, this is fairly important information, especially since the network isn't even live yet. Do you think I am wrong here? I am also happy to discuss this in the Talk page.

On a related note, the entire article needs to be cleaned up and I've put it on my list of articles to clean up in the future with better flow, information, and references. I'd be glad if I could run that by you in the future. Btcgeek (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I will check over the weekend. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate that. It seems impossible to update the article with the information (quoted directly from the reference, also verified via another Bloomberg reference in case there was any doubt). I've already warned the user on the user's talk page and on the main article's talk page but to no avail. Would appreciate you taking a more neutral look. Btcgeek (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism on CROs

Stop your vandalism on CRO articles. This is not spam. These are notable 25 yr old companies. I will report your agenda driven vandalism to administrators.Ssgajimouli (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

see also section is not spam. Are you new to wikipedia.Ssgajimouli (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I was just leaving a note at your talk page. Would you please respond at User_talk:Ssgajimouli#Conflict_of_interest_in_Wikipedia? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

will respond here

I HAVE RESPONDED ENOUGH. PLEASE stop your dictatorship on CROs.Ssgajimouli (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

stop your dictatorship

I am done with you Ssgajimouli (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

vandalism and POV

Do you think people will edit articles, only if they have connection. Pls stop writing to me, and pls kindly stop your dictator ship and pov on these articles.Ssgajimouli (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No connection

No Connection. I have knowledge on this, I work for TPG capital.Ssgajimouli (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Ssgajimouli, working for TPG Capital means you have a conflict of interest, here in Wikipedia, with respect to that company and companies in which it invests. Good grief. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

deliberate act

you are deliberately creating a conflict of interest, when there exist none. I think you have connection with these articles, and you are obstructing creating articles on competitor companies.Ssgajimouli (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

''''''I HAVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THAT COMPANY. you tell me what kind of promotional content I HAVE USED IN MY ARTICLE. YOU ARE HERE TO TAKE DECISIONS BASED ON EDITORS POV OR CONTENT OF ARTICLE. I WILL RECREATE THE NOVOTECH-CRO ARTICLE. WHICH IS A 20 YR OLD COMPANY'''''Ssgajimouli (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

oh my. Jytdog (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The "thanks" was for providing my amusement this morning. Natureium (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

We have too much forbearance IMO. Just look at the stuff above. I've indeffed Ssgajimouli as a gigantic waste of time and patience. Bishonen | talk 14:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC).

I checked the block log hoping you put that as the reason. Natureium (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I was more boring, I know, but that's often what WP:NOTHERE means. It's seductively easy to use Twinkle's readymade rationales. Bishonen | talk 16:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC).

Thanks bish. this person made themselves a tasty little morsel for a hungry dinosaur. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Kush Bottles

I responded to your requests on my talk page. We can keep the thread there on that page if you don’t mind. I just wanted to notify you that there is a response. Thanks! --420CapeTown (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Acceptable source Question

Hi Jytdog,

Since you've edited out a lot of my sources in the Lithium (medication) article, to save us both the trouble, I wanted to run a question by you about a potential source that I'm thinking of using. The source is this published article: https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2017238. The article "summarize[s] some of the assets of lithium beyond its well-known antimanic properties. Some of these are well documented, and several are new, preliminary, but nonetheless highly intriguing and of great potential clinical value. The current status of lithium-related side effects is briefly summarized."

1. This article is a summary of other research so is it acceptable to cite this article for the results that, from context, are clearly "well documented" and are NOT new and/or preliminary? Or would such inclusions just be deleted if this reference is used?
2. Do you know what the current policy is about including a section in Lithium (medication) (or possibly creating a new article) describing ongoing research on Lithium (medication), similar to this Wikipedia article: Research in lithium-ion batteries?

Best wishes.selfworm^Talk) 18:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. So that ref is PMID 28976944. (the quickest way to see if something is a review, or a research paper, or an editorial, is to look in pubmed) Unfortunately, pubmed doesn't classify this - it doesn't have a "publication type" bar at the bottom. (Compare to PMID 24132760 which does).

So, one has to look at it. The author says here what he is up to. So.. the paper is kind of essay, kind of reviewish... but also self-statedly skimming, and also aiming to make an argument.

This is not a source I would use. There are lots of hardcore reviews on lithium.

About your other question -- per WP:MEDMOS it is fine to have a research section, and it should lay out trends in research, not "highlight" specific studies. Please see here for the exact discussion of that.

Research in lithium-ion batteries is awful and is pretty the bottom of the barrel of how Wikipedia presents science. Please don't use that as a model for anything. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!selfworm^Talk) 20:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

sure - i fixed the link above, sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Fox RFC?

You closed a recent RSN discussion saying that an RfC was launched.[7] Where can I find that? I don't see it at WP:RFC/A or Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Archive#February_2018.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_238#Fox_News_reliability_RfC Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It was closed within a day? That's almost as disheartening as discovering that there are editors (verily, admins!) who think Fox passes RS in the first place. Unprintable.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawn, not closed. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, what do you think about a new RfC with the statement "Fox News is not RS on matters of American politics"? It's a straightforward enough question. François Robere (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I think another RfC will fail unless there is a good package of sources that anybody on any side of the issue would view as reliable, that say show how Fox News fails the RS criteria. If you look at the discussion you will see that. I pulled the RfC because the sources were not standing up.

The place to discuss this is RSN, tho. Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe one can be put in place. RSN instead of an RfC, with this question? François Robere (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

RFC at RSN... but, i think, first a discussion focused on sources about Fox News, seeing if there are better ones than were brought at the prior RfC. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

All these acronyms are confusing! I'll see what I can find. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I know that this isn't the ultimate place for a discussion, but after looking at the archived stuff, it occurred to me that an idea that might be worth developing is whether it fails RS for current events only when it is at odds with other sources covering the same events. It might be easier to get consensus for saying that other sources should be considered more reliable when sources disagree, as opposed to outright calling it an unreliable source. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Seem a good approach. How information sources handle conflicts of interest could be a good entry point. However, evidence should accumulate over the next six months, and December might bring cooler weather and cooler heads (though both are in doubt). Meanwhile, some preliminary discussion of source quality spectrum migh help build consensus. — Neonorange (Phil) — 21:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Moved here from user page

Hi Jytdog: Wes Conard here from Butterfly Network writing you on the jonathan rothberg update. Apologies for writing to your Talk page, but when I write and publish on my talk page it does not seem to stick. I don't know what the problem is, but I did not see another alternative but contacting you through your help page. I was writing to ask if there's anything I can start revising on the Rothberg draft - would welcome any direction that would be helpful.

Cheers, WesWconard1965 (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi - Wes I left comments at the draft talk page at User_talk:Wconard1965/sandbox and made a couple of edits to the draft itself; you don't seem to have seen them? Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Closed the Brachytherapy edit request

I went ahead and declined the latest edit request at the Brachytherapy article. All four of the references provided originated from a single doctor's work, meaning no secondary or tertiary sources were to be provided, per MEDRS, so it seemed like a simple open and shut case. I hope this was alright — you needn't reply here if you're okay with my decision. Thanks! .spintendo⋅⋅) 01:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Message about Spamming

Hi to all,

I did edits on a Wikipedia page and my edits/links were removed. I got a message about potentially spamming.

Just wanted to say that I had no intentions of spamming or anything similar. I'll refrain from doing any more edits and/or linking. Not sure if the website I linked to was already blacklisted or marked spam or anything similar, but if it was, I would kindly ask you to remove it from any blacklist or unmark it as spam.

If this is not the appropriate place for me to put this comment (sorry I'm kind of new in editing) please forward it or pass the message to the right person. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.167.219.153 (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Please feel free to edit! Please just use high quality sources - our mission is to provide people with knowledge, not so they can buy stuff, but so that they can learn. The way we do that, is by summarizing high quality sources. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for your patience and help on the meditation page, and for all you do on wiki JCJC777 (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your gracious note. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Passing the buck

Could you take a look if this [8] is a good change or not? I don't even know what NCCIH is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

NCCIH = National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Message about Spamming - Continuation

Thanks for the response @Jytdog Not sure how I can post a reply to the 'Message about Spamming' post above, so posting a new one. For sure I intended to post a quality source. The site I posted is a quality source (check it out) but was flagged as spam. I can also see it listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist The site is coinlib.io

Could you please remove it from the spam/blacklist and whitelist it? I'd rather not post again if that results into the site being marked spam/promo etc.

PS: The site I posted is 100% free, I never intended to promote something for people to buy or to shill. But rather to provide another resource for checking crypto prices apart from Coinmarketcap. Just for future reference, Coinlib may be much younger than CMC, but it has more than double the coins (4000+ whereas CMC has 1604 as of today). It's also much more beautiful, cleaner and I believe useful for wikipedia visitors to visit. I guess people are just used to using CMC no matter if much better alternatives exist out there.

Anyways... Just please whitelist/unspam it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.167.110.162 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Please clarify your relationship with CoinLib. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk

Hi, I got an email for the discussion. Please let me know when we can chat. Perhaps I need your help to add some info to misophonia page.

We can talk any time you like. If you email me back, we can set that up. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Global Media Journal

Hi, this is a predatory journal that is cited by a number of WP articles. It should be added to the edit filters, except that I have no clue on how to do that. Can you do this or would you know who I can contact about this? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing to fix

Hello Jytdog. Regarding this edit, there really was nothing to fix. I had chosen to sign with 5 tildes as authorized at WP:RFCST. I've left things as they are but did want you to know. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Borderline Personality Disorder

Seriously, what kind of "reliable" references do you want? There are links to Amazon and the books in question, which describe the books' contents. The citations for the books are in proper academic format.

There's a message by Lois McMaster Bujold describing her intentions in the novel _Komarr_. The fact that that message was distributed via a mailing list is not relevant to its reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BunsenH (talk • contribs) 18:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss content at the article talk page. A discussion was opened there already. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe that your use of "original research" is consistent with how Wikipedia uses the term in this context. I also don't believe that information posted on a mailing list is intrinsically unreliable; it's just the medium. The *source* is the author. I have requested dispute resolution in this matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Borderline_personality_disorder . BunsenH (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW

I wasn't trying to get a blanket application of WP:WikiVoice to all medical articles if the consensus had been to attribute those statements; since I realize that is what would probably result from the discussion at WT:NPOV, I've decided to close both discussions at WT:MED and WT:NPOV. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, sorry if I gave you a headache; that wasn't my intent. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for being crabby. Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Graoully

There is a discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Graoully, give your evidence of copyvio at the talk page. 2Joules (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Winner of caption competition on shonen's page

Here modest little crown!

By power vested in 'zilla, crown young Jytdog undisputed victor of caption competition! Here nice crown! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 20:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC).

Oh, I can now outdazzle Rihanna in her pope hat!! Thank you fearsome monster who can also be so kind. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Would be pleased to take this attractive piece off your hands, Jytdog, for a attractive investment opportunity that has just arisen. David "Mahogany" Dickinson (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Fish wanna see! Fish wants linky-link! Fish gives congrats to dogfish! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I played a little, yes. here. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Fish says good doggie! Enlightening reading indeed. Do keep an eye on that Martinevans trouble-maker! And hat looks very good on you! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Banned?

At [9], you listed a Centaurus Capital IP as banned; was this intentional? I'm not aware of that. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

accident, fixed. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, Teicholz recently appeared on Reason TV. Fruits of a PR campaign? Or coincidence? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

She pops up in the media from time to time, doing her thing. One reason i listed the 2017 op-ed by her was to show that she is still at it. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That bibblewarroir you reported on ANI...

...looked a little like Til Eulenspiegel, no? Worth tagging as a sock, do you think? @SpacemanSpiff: @Bishonen: @Favonian: Sorry if I'm missing some telltale sign that this is not Til, or if I'm forgetting to ping someone else who might have a say in the matter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know much about that account, I think Doug Weller is the one who has kept track of it. —SpacemanSpiff 06:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Most of my experience with Til is with the IPs he's been intermittently using to evade his blocks (although I should clarify that at least some of them were probably random trolls doing joe-jobs on him), and Bish is usually the one who deals with them (and their ranges), from what I understand. I got Favonian's name just now from the SPI archives, and pinged you as well, basically because you were the one who blocked this account. I wasn't sure if you had some particular reason for believing it was not Til; now that I know that wasn't the case ... well, I guess I should apologize for annoying you with a second ping. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not Til. That's not the way he normally behaves or the sort of username he would use. Doug Weller talk 07:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Makes sense. Sorry for the false alarm. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

welcoming new editors

Hi Jytdog, I hope that you are well. I know you do a large amount of work trying to balance welcoming new users with maintaining the quality and non-biased nature of the articles. I am teaching a small course in June for Cochrane interns, and also running a few editathons in the next little while, mostly for medical professionals/researchers and students. I started to create a document that would summarize WP:MEDRS, COI, and intro to editing to help me with this. It is not finished yet (more of a collection of my ideas and taking bits and pieces from MEDHOW, MEDRS, etc., at this point).

I am wondering if you have a few minutes to read what I wrote about COI. I would appreciate your feedback and to see what you think of my wording and approach. I am hoping to have this finished by the end of May. I am also going to re-read your why MEDRS essay, which is excellent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JenOttawa/Introduction_to_Medical_Editing:_Cheat_Sheet#Introduction%3A_Transiting_from_academic_writing_to_Wikipedia

Thank you,

Jenny JenOttawa (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I tweaked it a bit. You might find WP:EXPERT helpful to read and to incorporate; I also wrote User:Jytdog/How to help new editors get oriented. I find that many people who go awry do so because they don't understand the mission of Wikipedia, or they don't understand the fundamental ways that the community realizes the mission, nor why Wikipedia works that way. A lot of what we do here and how we do it, is not intuitive, especially to experts, and their assumptions (often never examined by them) can cause them and other editors a lot of grief. Both "expert" and "how" try to articulate the mission and how we work here. I spent some time in "how" explaining why Wikipedia works like it does; people are often more persuaded to adapt to policies and guidelines when reasons are given.

So you might find some bits of those helpful. Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

This is extremely helpful! Thank you for taking the time to look over my draft and for filling in a few of my blanks that I had not yet taken the time to finish (MEDRS, etc.). I like your suggestions. I have looked at your "how" doc. It is great. There are quite a few resources floating around for new editors, but I find that most tutorials are not 100% geared to medical editing and/or many people do not learn effectively from click-through modules. Thank you again for all you do around here to keep the medical content reliable! JenOttawa (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome and thank you too! Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Message about Spamming - Continuation 2

Hi again Jytdog,

I'm one of the team members if that makes any difference. We did discuss internally about the spam-marking and all agreed that it was not of our intention to spam/hard-promote our site. Also, we agreed to do no more posts of any kind that include our link, to avoid being considered spam.

So if you may, kindly remove our site from the banned/black list. That will allow our users to organically mention our site in the future, if ever.

If you wish, you can contact us at info at coinlib dot io

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.177.253.130 (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. These two edits, here and here were blatant spamming. I looked and found some others. So i nominated the site for the spam blacklist and people there made the decision to blacklist it. I agree with that decision and have no intention of helping spammers. Please do not write here again. Jytdog (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

German war effort arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or 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/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bill Fink (May 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

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

Legacypac (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

If anybody is curious, see Draft_talk:Bill_Fink#Note_to_reviewers. Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Peer reviewed Journal

This was not from a press release but from a peered review journal. Look at the cited source. The other claims are completely unfounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.254.34 (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You are diluting the content of Wikipedia by choosing un-cited sources over sited sources taken from multiple Science Journals. I will raise this issue with multiple Wikipedia employees that work in the main office if I need to and you will probably lose your ability to own this content if you continue to choose un-cited sources over medical journal sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.254.34 (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:Glucomannan#Sourcing. But yes you are right it is a not a press release. It is not still not an OK source. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Ping

Hi Jytdog. I pinged you on my talk page since you might have some thoughts and/or advice. No need to reply if you don't want to get involved. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh there is a "bcc" ping! I had no idea that existed. Sure I will have a look. Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

"definitely time to dissolve"

It is definitely time to dissolve the "rescue" project. I will be filing an MfD shortly. Not sure why you struck this because the editor you were addressing was not a regular of the project -- the relationship between action and motivation eludes me. But I am beginning to wonder if maybe some "deletion" TBANs for editors !voting disruptively in multiple AFDs wouldn't be a more expedient solution than opening an MFD anyway. It is pretty easy to demonstrate that certain editors have !voted in dozens or hundreds of AFDs based on a personal "anti-deletion" ideology rather than a careful reading of sources, in the process even repeatedly pretending to have a greater command of the subject matter than they actually do, and demonstrating this fact to the community would not be as difficult as opening an MFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm keeping my powder dry on this for now. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on it, and making sure that any listed AfD includes a note that the AfD was listed there. Obviously, there are some regulars who !vote without making the disclosure themselves. For now, that's simply less-than-ideal practice, but not a policy violation. I agree that giving it time is the best thing to do for now. At some point, a matter of WP:ROPE will take care of itself. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish and Jytdog: Both of you, like me, only became aware of ARS recently, correct? Folks who were involved with it years ago have told me that it's basically a spent force and not worth worrying about; at this point it's basically just two disruptive editors talking to each other. One of those two is essentially one more COPYVIO-article/BATTLEGROUND-incident/NPA-violation away from an indefinite block, and the other has been so disruptive in his AFD !votes recently (and going back years) that a TBAN would probably not be hard. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I only became aware of it recently, in the sense of paying close attention to it. I've known for a long time that it existed, and I generally had a positive impression of it over most of that time. In principle, it's a good thing. I think that watchful waiting is the best approach for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I see that editors who are listing AfDs at the rescue page are being conscientious about indicating that they have done so, on the AfD page. That's good news indeed. So long as that practice continues, I for one have no problem with the project. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That is a good thing. My concern was, and remains, people coming and just voting !keep without careful argument or work. That project cannot be abused just to rally ~voters. Disclosing the posting is helpful with regard to helping everybody be aware that such behavior is not OK. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and I also think that most closing admins who spend significant time at AfD are able to assess !votes so long as there has been such a disclosure. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No subject

LMAO at your answer to an insulting rhetorical question. [10] Natureium (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

:) I actually took that question in good faith, understanding that it may have been asked with fangs. Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If you have a moment

David_G._Rand could do with attention. I noticed the van der Linden sock I just blocked edited it. Looks like another case of popular science self promotion. I'd DIY but am travelling and need to sleep! SmartSE (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

thanks, done. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Cheers. I owe you a beer ;) SmartSE (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Nextdoor

Thanks for cleaning up the Nextdoor Talk page. It was a mess. Chisme (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I would like to archive stuff but am waiting to hear back on the talk page (here) if folks are Ok with that. If you are, please post there. thx! Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Unsigned (Part the third)

What happens when it isn't the last post on a page is what I want to know. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 08:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I see what you did there! Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Now I'm waiting for Trypto to wake up. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Cockadoodle-doo! It worked! Just one click, and it got the right edit. (Admittedly, I was wondering the same thing myself.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Some people can never be pleased! (including myself as I can't get the button to add it). FWIW though, I added it to Wikipedia:User_scripts/List#Discussion_oriented. What I don't get though is why the bot works sometimes but not at others. SmartSE (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Unsigned (part two)

I remember that some time ago there was a discussion here about adding a signature to an unsigned talk comment. I just learned about something to put in one's common.js file that can do it automatically: [11]. I tried it, and it does add a blue thing to click on at the very bottom of the edit screen, but I haven't tried it in action yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryptofish (talk • contribs) 23:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It works! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hm! I have been using template:unsigned2 and have been happy with that. I will play with i'm intimidated by these js script thingies. Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I have preserved that conversation in my Sandbox, because I'm useless at remembering this sort of thing. What happens though if the post concerned is not the last post on a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxy the dog (talk • contribs) 08:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

If it makes it easier to see how to install it, here is the diff of me adding it for myself: [12]. You just have to edit the corresponding file for your username. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hooray it worked! Thanks for the concrete diff. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

note r.e. medical articles

Thank you user:Jytdog. I have posted a longer reply regarding the Monomelic amyotrophy edits on my talk page. GeeBee60 (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Please review my recent MMA changes at your convenience. More notes at MMA gb talk (but at this point NOT on MMA talk). GeeBee60 (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

---

I have now completely rewritten Monomelic Amyotrophy and it is in a queue. Perhaps you have time to review it. It is here:

REVISED / EXPANDED -- Monomelic amyotrophy --

A few notes about the work is on the talk page for MMA Talk:Monomelic amyotrophy#In the queue -- Monomelic amyotrophy -- complete revision

Thanks, GeeBee60 (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey I have been meaning to swing back by there. I will do soon! Thanks for the reminder. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog. I already got a little reprimand for how I used my sandbox and then submitting it -- double wrong -- copying content into my sandbox while not following COPYWITHIN protocol et cetera et cetera. Wikipedia:Teahouse#feedback_on_revisions Anyway, now I'm going to insert the whole jumbo revision into the page, with a note in Talk, and duck. This is a low traffic area, not like I'm fixing POTUS or Islam or Climate change. But it has flaws no doubt. Thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Women in the Bible

Can I assume it's on your watchlist or should I consider pinging you if... I think I should ping you? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Am watching it. thanks for asking! Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello Jytdog, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

• Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

• A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

• There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

• Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

• Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
• The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Where do I go to find out what "granular options" (last section, first para) are? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 00:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. Perhaps ask at WT:NPR? Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Advice

If you help him like this then you rob him of the chance to learn a valuable lesson. Next time he will do the same thing. This is a pattern, not an isolated incident. He will earn money from your work. Edward Mordake (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I am very familiar with paid and conflicted editing issues in WP. This multiple-sections is not how BC1278 usually works, and your vehemence is part of what has turned that into the mess that it was. There is only one section open now, as BC1278 very reasonably agreed to withdraw all but one. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I thought you were part of the solution but it seems you would rather be part of the problem. OK, you win, I give up. I can deal with idiots, trolls and PR agents, but not while getting stabbed in the back. Edward Mordake (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Just as a note to you, Edward has been blocked as a sockpuppet of The Quixotic Potato. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

As you know what happens at the conclusion of sock puppet investigations, and I have no idea, I wonder if you can opine as to whether the various comments on Talk and direct edits to the article, respectively, can be removed? What happens to their work? In this case, it's much worse then just a sockpuppet because of the threatening e-mail sent by Edward to the CEO of Nextdoor, making very explicit that Edward was intent on creating a "PR Nightmare" for the company.BC1278 (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Edits can be reverted on sight. Talk page contributions can be reverted if no-one’s replies or struck otherwise. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

This is so unhappy. QP went so lost. Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I guess the lesson is that it's OK to be an idiot, troll, or PR agent, but back-stabbing is a bridge too far. I'll try to follow that dictum. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Bad fish. :( It is really sad that QP went astray. I liked QP; they had a certain edginess that worked pretty well and made me laugh sometimes, while making usually good points. Their going astray actually started with them joking around with me, which somebody else (very wrongly) interpreted as an attack on them, to which QP responded with exasperation and an unfortunate PA, which got them blocked, which they would not back away from. As i laid out here. Which was already sad. The stuff he was doing around BC1278's work here, and especially the email to the CEO, has real world consequences and was extra awful. No, being an idiot, troll, or PR agent is not OK, and joking in WP can be dangerous. He said grumpily. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You do realize I was joking, right? Maybe I'm an idiot, but I'm not really saying that being an idiot is OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I do which is why i noted that i was being grumpy. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Personally, on reflection, the discussion we had over "award-winning" wasn't a complete waste of time. It just felt like it at the time. But I've often pondered on what should be visible on a blocked sock page per "DENY". In a way it might it be preferable to have all that Talk page history permanently visible, (including all the warnings he carefully deleted) as a kind of museum of horrors. Sure, folks can go and check that hidden history, but few would bother, I suspect. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not touching that one. :0 Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning 1

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behaviour indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I am aware of the policy, as I provided you with this notice (diff. Which means that I am aware of it. You posting it here is really classic tendentious behavior of someone who does not understand how Wikipedia works. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Really? Says the abusive editor who can't collaborate on articles? violet/riga _^[talk] 23:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

NeuroSex

His older accounts appear to be Cogsci101 (talk · contribs) and Neuro1973 (talk · contribs). I haven't yet looked farther than that for more. Not sure if you, Bbb23 and Sir Sputnik want to move the archive case to an older name or not (especially considering CheckUser being stale past a certain time frame). But when he shows up again, I'll point to the older accounts in the next investigation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Jesus

Care to actually comment or engage with me?ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

You were the one late to the party on the talk page. Do not post here again; i do not tolerate bullshit here. Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Jean-Pol Martin

Hello Jytdog. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Jean-Pol Martin, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not unduly promotional. The topic is notable. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Questionable changes

Hi again Jytdog,

I'm a french wikipedian, so I'm not the best person to know your practices on enwiki. There were some strange changes on Idriss Aberkane last month, several changes of three new accounts (one of the accounts is old, but had only made one change on enwiki, almost the same on frwiki) that retyped the article, trying to get rid of negative reviews ([13]). Another french-speaking contributor has already noticed the problem and added criticism again. This attempt at deletion has also been observed on our side.

Can you look at the history of the article and tell me what you think? The french article is in long semi-protection.

Surely nothing very worrying, but I would like english contributors to keep an eye on this article... Thank you in advance, Lofhi (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow that was one bad page. I worked it over. Limited sources in English.. too bad. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Jytdog. I'm just here to inform you about events around Idriss Aberkane's article : Mnadiv is blocked indefinitely from frwiki and Netpluriel is his puppet. Best regards, Lofhi (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Suspecting academic COI

Could you have a look at this user and behavior suspicious of promoting/protecting his research? Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I've interacted with that editor quite a bit in the past about POV issues on animal rights pages, and have found them to be quite helpful. It's possible that this is one instance of poor judgment about a COI (I don't know), but I would suggest being careful about not treating the issue too harshly. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I spent some time looking at this last night and was not seeing it. The person is an academic who is very enthusiastic about adding content (text and images) but not so great about sourcing. They tend to cite textbooks and solid papers when they do cite stuff, from what i have seen so far (i started way back and have not gone all the way up to today yet). The current dispute at the Talk page is the difficult one where academics think it is fine to build mini-reviews from primary sources.... there maybe self-citing going on (no idea) but even if so the deeper issue appears to be the building mini-reviews from primary sources thing... Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

"Building mini-reviews from primary sources", possibly using his own literature, was my assessment too, and where I became suspicious of 'academic' COI. He seems overly sensitive to critique of careless writing and conjecture based on weak primary sources. Is there a soft caution to employ for the editor's Talk page? Thanks for putting in the time and thoughts. --Zefr (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest just saying that your concern is about primary sources and that it's not personal. I've observed that he can be a bit sensitive and brusque, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is self-citing going on. Also it's important to be careful about implying an editor's identity because of outing. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Surprise surprise

I’m not at all surprised that you’d revert things at young blood transfusion. None of your attempts to cause trouble have worked out so you go back to edit warring without discussion. Seems to be a pattern in your behaviour. I posted on the talk page and gave people the chance to respond. You didn’t so I implemented the changes. I’ll wait a bit to see some better discussion from you that doesn’t simply describe what you don’t like as badly written shit. Great way to collaborate. violet/riga _^[talk] 10:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

violetriga, without looking in depth, the way this comment was written looks like a baiting attempt which should never be appropriate. Alex Shih (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih, the baiting comes from Jytdog who has WP:OWN issues on that article. He reverted good faith edits which were made after plenty of notice was given on the talk page. violet/riga _^[talk] 11:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep. The content violetriga restored last night included Jeff Bercovici wrote for Inc. that it is "a popular obsession" and that there are rumours of wealthy technology bosses "spending tens of thousands of dollars for the procedures and young-person-blood".

Here on May 26th I had written on the talk page: Even the Daily Fail has a more professionally written headline: Silicon Valley executives are getting $8,000 BLOOD transfusions from the young in an effort to turn the clock back on ageing. And the fact that this is a Daily Fail headline is, I think, all that needs saying about how inappropriate this is for Wikipedia. So the OP is not baiting, but rather, is bullshitting. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Violetriga, the bullshit in your post is transparent, and everybody can see it. Do not post here again. I do not tolerate bullshit on my talk page. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Learning By Teaching

If Learning by Teaching is kept, I am willing to help try and recraft it to meet WP standards, perhaps in collaboration. I learned about the method in my teacher training many years ago and haven't really dealt with it since (though have used some practices of it, and its successive theories, in my own teaching at times) so I would have to do some real looking. However, writing an article (stub) that doesn't start with Senneca seems doable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

ANI issue

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. NightHeron (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Archive request

Hi!

On Nextdoor, do you think we should unarchive the Talk:Nextdoor/Archive_1#RfC_on_Founder_section as it is a completed RfC with a summation? Since an old discussion about this "CEO" section is still live on the Talk page, I am concerned that new editors coming to Talk will revive the discussion, or edit the article in regards to this topic, without seeing the resolved RfC.

I have re-listed the RfC about the profiling content in a new section, as you suggested, because no new editors weighed in to the other discussion, unfortunately.

Many thanks!

EdBC1278 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Thanks for your note. Would you please suggest un-archiving that at Talk:Nextdoor#Closing,_archiving, so it is part of the talk page history? (No problem with the request -- everything should be centralized where anybody can respond....) Thanks Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Cynthia Kenyon in Leonard Guarante entry?

Why do you insist on putting "Cynthia Kenyon's lab at UCSF discovered that a single-gene mutation in (Daf-2) could double the lifespan of C. elegans" into entry about Leonard Guarente? Daf-2 has nothing to do with rest of the text about sirtuins... Even if you are gunning for "universal fairness", wouldn't you want to include that first gene to extend longevity was AGE-1, identified by Michael Klass in early 80s??

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.236.104.222 (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for talking!

So usually I would say "please post this on the talk page I will answer there", but in this case I will answer here, because the answer is not about this content, but about how to work in Wikipedia.

You seem have some expertise in this field. That is a good thing but it is also a problem, because ... expertise in the field =/=expertise in editing WP and experts who come here have a hard time understanding that. (Please see WP:EXPERT, which tries to help explain)

What we do here is summarize sources. Please read the source that is at the of that paragraph, which that paragraph is summarizing, and then reply here and let me know what you think. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

IQVIA

I believe you work for IQVIA and you receive commission from them. You please confirm to me whether you are associated with IQVIA.Veilplot (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't. Thanks for asking. (This is also what Ssgajimouli said. As predicted, further similarities emerging) Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

What ?

I have no idea what you are talking about me. There is no promotional content in the article which I wrote. Do you think mentioning companie's locations comes under promotion ? Then why other articles, and other Contract research organizations have articles in wikipedia.Veilplot (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, your editing is remarkably similar to Ssgajimouli's. Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not related to Novotech and tpg capital. I do not work for those companies. I do not have any relationship with those companies and its content on wikipedia.Veilplot (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

That's very odd, because your behavior is exactly the same as Sagajimouli's too. That person also wouldn't keep a conversation in one place. (diff) I imagine further similarities will become clear with time. Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC) (added diff Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC))

I dont know, but I am not related to ssgajjimouli, Novotech, and tpg capital. Veilplot (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Whatever. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Paolo Casali

I see you are one of the active editors to this article. I left a notice on the talk page to discuss content. Was hoping I can work with you to clear up the notices at the top of the page. Since you have gone through most of the article and removed or rewrote a good portion, is it possible to remove the template about having a "close connection?" I am working on getting better references which I will present on the talk page (I will not edit directly). I just wanted to come here to give you notice that I left a note on that talk page. Since I am new, please let me know anything I need to be aware of other than the conflicted editor guidelines which I have already read through. --Meriville (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've left a couple of messages at your talk page, at User talk:Meriville - let's continue there. Jytdog (talk) 06:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your quick response. I am not sure if responding on my talk page or here was appropriate but since you asked the questions there, I answered them there. Let me know if I should copy things to your page or leave them where they are. Thanks.--Meriville (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

perfect, thanks. Jytdog (talk)

Okay. That was information overload but I made sure to read and absorb everything before responding. I left the notice on the page as well as responded to you on my talk page. I just wanted to come here and thank you for being reasonable and working with me on this. The more I read about the conflict of interest guidelines, the more I see how it can be an issue for those who edit here regularly. I don't want to disrupt the website so I will simply follow your lead. Thanks again (notice I threaded and signed the comment). --Meriville (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Note

Hi, I am a university student, and this is an assignment i am uploading. Please can you explain to me what i am doing wrong, so i can fix it and re-upload it? Please can you advise which sources are unreliable? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessperrone (talk • contribs) 02:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Please self revert; I was just filing an edit warring case and you are probably going to be blocked or the article frozen. Once the article is stable again we talk about sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Jessperron -- others have now come along and fixed the content. Please do read the several messages on your talk page, including the content at User_talk:Jessperrone#Welcome. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you evaluate...

... this and other stuff by same editor? Looks very much like promotion of med companies, and editor has a penchant for press releases. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that person is problematic. Will do. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

G11 declined

Jytdog, I've declined your G11 tag at Rohit Varma. While the intent of the page appears to be promotional, the language used therein is not bad enough for this to qualify for G11. I have PRODed the page instead, and will send it to AfD if the PROD tag is removed. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

PROD is fine, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I just want to add that I very grateful that you took some additional action. It is frustrating when people just remove a speedy tag and do nothing to address the issues... so thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I agree that it's frustrating. Vanamonde (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Marcus Schrenker Article

Hi, I read your edits to the Marcus Schrenker article. I just saw a 20/20 interview about him and have concerns about this Wikipedia article. It seems to be really slanted by someone that is directly connected to him. What I read about him, and saw about him, is incredibly different than what the Wikipedia article suggests. Are you sure it was a fair edit? It seems this is nothing more than using Wikipedia to slam a person at their rock bottom. There were no other viewpoints other than the persons rock bottom. This guy is out there doing far different and quite positive things (according to the news) and this Wikipedia article doesn't mention anything like that.

Concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericcrossword (talk • contribs) 04:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The article pretty much stops at 2010. If there are reliable sources for things he has done since then, i am sure the article can be brought forward. Please post at the article talk page, Talk:Marcus Schrenker, and we can discuss! Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

"the Wikipedia"

You might like Mark Twain's parody The Awful German Language (with Wikisource fulltext). It's very popular in Germany. HLHJ (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

:) i do. Jytdog (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Nanny Ogg: "Words have sex in foreign languages." Granny Weatherwax: "I'm not surprised." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I had to go look that up! Maybe we have a better image for WP:IDHT.... Jytdog (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, now I get it. Sure, but copyright, probably. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense

You are determined to not allow that company's article in wikipedia. Dont skip your answers and say whatever whatever. Say that you are a vandal in the guise of a good editor, and your strategy is agenda driven vandalism. I know you work for IQVIA, and you dont want your competitor company to take a prominence over wikipedia.Veilplot (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

vandalism, check. I am waiting for the all caps to start again.

Look, it is very clear that you are the same person as Ssgajimouli; i have filed to have that acted on, but in the meantime, here we are.

Ssgajimouli disclosed that they were working for TPG Capital, then subsequently denied that, as have you.

There are processes here for managing paid editing and COI that you are ignoring. You are also very apparently evading a block, which is also a violation of policy. The right way to do this is to appeal the block at the Ssgajimouli account and if successful, follow the PAID policy and the COI guideline.

For the article, there needs to be sufficient independent, secondary sources, or we cannot keep it. It's not me, it's how WP works.

Please don't write here anymore. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

ACT DYK

Regarding the Advanced Cell Therapeutics DYK nom, wasn't it another editor who did the review you noted as QPQ? Did you link the wrong one accidentally? ☆ Bri (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought commenting is "reviewing". I guess not, and I will remove that. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Second issue, hook neutrality. See review page. I'm assuming you don't need the usual boilerplate template for issues. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

OK! I am starting to do a review, to satisfy that requirement. Will respond over there. Jytdog (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Chemical imbalance

Hello Jytdog. I stumbled on Chemical imbalance and noticed a redir and kind of want to go on a rampage of bold edits but I saw where you have touched upon this topic lately and I am wondering what your thoughts are about this? Personally, I do not think it is honest of us to include the phrase "chemical imbalance" and have it redirected like it currently is. I'm going to wait to see what you have to advise about this before editing this further since I'm not quite sure what to do here. -Thanks!TeeVeeed (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about "not honest". But this is best discussed at an article talk page or perhaps at WT:MED -- am thinking the latter because whatever you mean by "honest", the monamine hypothesis applies to disorders other than major depressive disorder, and it currently redirects to Biology of depression but aspects of this are discussed for example at Mechanisms of schizophrenia... shall we discuss at WT:MED? Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I mean using the term as-if we have an article, Chemical imbalance linked int like it is but we do not, but then it is a redirect. I'm concerned because the term and link is used widely. The 'dishonest" is the implication that there is an article titled Chemical imbalance----I know that we have a legit use for piped internal links but this is a little sketchy? Yes I changed it to the depression article section linked for one change that I edited but it almost looks like it would need to be on an article by article basis because yeah it is used in other articles which are not about biological causes of depression. TeeVeeed (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hii

I would like to create this article on this 22 yr old Company (https://novotech-cro.com/). I would like to know what I should do. It is not your birth right to not allow me to edit on wikipedia. Right ? or it is your birth right to decide which articles are not to be created, then why there is an article on PRA health sciences. Veilplot (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

birth right, dictatorship, whatever. diff, twenty-something year old company, whatever. diff. I'm just waiting for the shoe to drop. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Shoe has dropped. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Eugene Gu

Thank you for communicating with me regarding edits. No personal interest in engaging in a so-called "edit war". Rather, seeking to provide information concisely as provided in citation provided. The alleged rationale for termination from the medical institution is relevant information, as compared to the standard start date for an academic year in residency. I am certainly willing to hear out your perspective in the edits, however. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.201.44 (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss at the section I opened, at Talk:Eugene_Gu#Reason_for_terminating_residency. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Mass deletion of references

Hello, Jytdog. I see that you have decided to delete dozens of references to Angelopedia (including from people's User pages), doing so while discussion of the matter is still taking place at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. I call on you to reverse your actions. After doing so, feel free to add a {{better source needed}} template if you feel that would be appropriate. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Have been leaving "cn" tags. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Angelopedia. It is going to be blacklisted soon too. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion at RS notice board supports Jytdog's actions. Legacypac (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Content dispute at cerebrovascular disease

Diabetes not a stroke risk? You mean I've been miseducating my patients all these years?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Mucositis - 2nd opinion sought

I'm in the process of answering a COI edit request at Talk:Mucositis#Treatment_&_Prevention_of_OM, as I'm still learning and it's your area of interest I'm keen to get your input & would like a second opinion before adding the information they are requesting. Looking at your talk page now though, I feel reluctant to ask because it looks like you're really busy. If not you, then perhaps one of your TPS's might be willing to drop by & have a look at it, see if I'm way off base here or not? I'd appreciate anyone's help (preferably med. related expertise)  spintendo  04:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Update: I declined the request on the grounds that the issue needed further discussion. It had already been sitting on the queue for over two weeks and no one had began that discussion yet (there was and still is a valid issue to be discussed). In the past, COI edit requests have sat on the queue for months, but my reasoning is that allowing that kind of a length doesn't seem to offer any benefit over having it just declined and then re-raised at a later date when someone might be willing to discuss it. (Note: This reasoning is specific to this article, and does not include the other one we were discussing earlier today.)  spintendo  01:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

That stuff is workable. I will get there tonight or tomorrow. thanks for pinging me!! Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)